girl4you2
Posts: 1622
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
http://ifnews.if.fi/en/latest-topics/liability-newsletter/the-truth-about-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-trial.html
Mrs Stella Liebeck, 79, who was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, bought a cup of coffee from a drive-through window of a McDonalds restaurant. The grandson drove the car forward and stopped momentarily so that she could add cream to her coffee. When she tried to open the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled onto her lap, causing third-degree burns to her thighs and groin areas. Liebeck was hospitalised for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. The burns left permanent scarring and she remained ill until two years after the incident.
After she was released from hospital, Liebeck contacted McDonalds and asked them to compensate her expenses, totalling $20,000. McDonalds refused and offered her $800.
After this, Liebeck sued McDonalds, initiating the famous trial in which the jury determined $200,000 as suitable compensatory damages for her medical expenses and disability. However, since Liebeck was found at fault in spilling the coffee, the damages were reduced to $160,000. Subsequently, the jury found McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and wilful and ordered McDonalds to pay Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which is roughly equivalent to the sales of McDonalds’ coffee over two days.
Weighty evidence
The trial heard that, according to McDonalds’ in-house instructions, coffee sold at their restaurants should be at a temperature of 83 - 88 C while in most other restaurants it is approximately 60 C. Expert witnesses confirmed that liquid at 82 degrees causes third-degree burns in less than three seconds, whereas at 60-degrees it takes 20 seconds to cause a similar burn. In other words, if spilled, 60-degree coffee cools in such a way that it does not cause burns.
A McDonalds representative testified that the company had known of burns caused by its coffee for 10 years. Their documents revealed more than 700 claims by people burned by coffee, and that the company had paid over $500,000 in related damages. Furthermore, a U.S. burn research centre had demanded that McDonalds reduce the temperature of its coffee.
The trial revealed that McDonalds intentionally kept its coffee hot to save money. Hot water improved its aroma, enabling them to use cheaper coffee types. Furthermore, the fact that customers did not complain about cold coffee reduced the number of free coffees given in compensation.
A McDonalds’ representative told the court that the company was aware that temperatures over 60 degrees could cause burns. Despite this, their quality assurance manager testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee since customers wanted their coffee hot. He also said the coffee was too hot to drink immediately after it had been poured into a cup, but that customers bought coffee on their way to work or home and did not drink it until at their destination, allowing it to cool to drinking temperature. However, the company’s own research presented in court showed that most customers consumed their coffee immediately upon driving off. For this reason, the serving temperature of the coffee made it unsuitable for drinking. Although McDonalds knew of the burns caused by hot coffee, the company had decided not to warn its customers of the hazards involved. A McDonalds representative admitted in court that without a related warning, customers would hardly understand that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee.
Moreover, the jury found that the injury sustained by Liebeck was decidedly more severe than she could have reasonably expected to result from a coffee spill. Thus, McDonalds had neglected customer safety by serving coffee that could cause third-degree burns from their drive through line.
Unknown compensation
After the jury’s decision, the judge reduced the punitive damages awarded to Liebeck from $2.7 million to $480,000 because they were considered unreasonable. Both parties appealed against the amount of compensation but eventually entered into an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum before the beginning of the new trial. So the final outcome of the case remains unknown although it is thought that the amount of damages was further reduced.
Jury members said after the trial that although the case seemed ridiculous at first, it became clear during the process that McDonalds cared little about the safety of its customers and that, in the end, the evidence clearly showed that McDonalds had caused Liebeck’s injuries through negligence.
The trial successfully demonstrated that McDonalds served coffee to drive-in customers at too high a temperature although it was aware that coffee could have, and had already, caused numerous third-degree burns. On this basis, it is easy to agree with the jury that Mrs. Liebeck was entitled to damages.
just the facts. note the prior cases, the recommendation of a burn center, reasonable expectations for something sold as consumable, et al.
_____________________________
maireann croí éadrom i bhfad. is maith an scáthán súil charad. is leor nod don eolach.
got shoes?
|
RE: McDonalds sued for $10 mil for not holding the cheese - 
Profile
. I still eat too many torts, oops I mean tarts.
RE: McDonalds sued for $10 mil for not holding the cheese - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread