The Legal Reader

How can Ms. Stella Liebeck be stupid enough to drive while drinking coffee. Even if it wasn't hot it was distracting her.
She then has an accident and blames it on an innocent company to avoid blame.

The result, she has 2.9 million, McDonalds then puts a warning on there cups of coffee to say contents are hot.

Next someone will read the warning, crash and sue because they were distracted when reading it.

Sorry, but I have to say that the legal system in the States is a real joke. Ask any intelligent person living outside the states and you will find that they know that coffee is hot.
How many people drink cold or luke warm coffee, very few thats for sure.

Anyway, these are my personal comments of an insane legal system.

Disclaimer: If you believe the American legal system to be just and fair, please do not read this message. I take no responsibility for your thoughts or beliefs about said legal system

Private -- you don't seem to understand the basic facts of this case, starting with the fact that Ms. Stella Liebeck was a passenger, not the driver, and that the accident happened while the car was parked.

To make the broad generalization that the legal system is a "joke" or "insane" based on a case that you don't understand seems to be part of the problem here. How will anyone ever improve the system if they don't even take the time to understand what's wrong with it in the first place?

You have not lived till you enjoy coffee so hot it leaves 3rd degree burns on your tounge and mouth. to save .03 of and ounce of coffee McDonalds runs the coffee temp up to 185, the boiling point of water is 210, so the coffee is even tolerable in taste. Drinking McDonalds coffee is like drinking water with 1/3 the coffeee needed for a descent cup of coffee.

I, too, thought the case was insane. Then I learned "the rest of the story." Ms. Liebeck only requested that McDonald's pay for her medical bills. They refused. Evidence was produced during the trial that McDonald's had ignored hundreds of burn complaints over the years and had never even consulted a burn specialist. The McDonald's franchises, at the time, were required to serve their coffee 40-50 degrees hotter than coffee brewed at home. Coffee that hot causes third degree burns in mere seconds. Further, in light of the evidence presented at trial, McDonald's said they had no intention of changing their policies. Ms. Liebeck was awarded an appropriate amount of compensatory damages minus 20% for her own negligence. The huge amount of money awarded was for punitive damages to punish McDonald's for its obvious indifference to its customers' safety. By the way, the punitive damages were based on only two days worth of coffee sales. I hardly think it hurt McDonald's! Ms. Liebeck and McDonald's settled for an undisclosed lesser amount.

A little over a year ago I presented a seminar paper during a graduate program in Europe on the McDonald's case and other "urban legends" (like the cat in the microwave). The McDonald's case has no jurisprudential value whatsoever, so why do we comment on it at all? I think it is because it has symbolized part of our legal system. Even if it is not true, and if the facts are poorly understood, for many the McDonalds case (and the fictional pet in the microwave) have come to stand for the wrongs in our system.

Anyhow, the seminar paper that I wrote can be viewed for free at SSRN . (http://ssrn.com/abstract=545243). In the paper I cover several instances in Europe where the press has misreported the McDonald's case and used it as examples of the absurdities of the American system.

How can you be stupid enough to post such a ridiculous comment? Have you done any form of research? She was burnt in a parked car in a McDonald's parking lot that her grandson was driving.

If you were informed you would know, she was a passenger in a car driven by her grandson. The car was stopped as she tried to take the top off of the coffee, which she placed between her thighs so she could use both hands. She received 3rd degree burns to 6-16% of her body-depending on which report you read. 3rd degree burns burn you down to your muscle. The burns were on her thighs, buttocks and genitals. (how would you feel?) She spent 8 days in the hospital and had to undergo reconstructive surgery, all this from coffee!!!!!! McDonalds stated in court that they knew the coffee was too hot-and there had been 700 previous burn reports from their coffee. Yes there is personal responsibility on her part, but what about corporate responsibility. All she wanted was for McDonalds to pay her medical bills. They refused. While the jury awarded a large sum in punative damages, the judge reduced it to about 600,000. Try to be responsible and remain informed, before you say things that are untrue and hurt people you uniformed boob!!!!!!!!!!!!

The real problem here is with the insurance industry. Their good hands are for catching your checks and fighting tooth and nail to deny any claim that is made against the policy which you paid for.

The only one who is a joke and ludacris is you. You obviously did not research the case, and spoke about something you didn't know. Don't you feel smart now?

I agree with the comment that the insurance companies are too blame.

i would like to point out the ludicrous is spelled inappropriately. so please, research before you type and consult a dictionary. thank you