Curse You, Justice System

[Hobbit]

I have nearly lost my faith in the justice system. Only the Scott Peterson verdict leaves me clinging onto hope that it can be saved without massive amounts of, as my game-saavy colleagues say, "pwnage." I felt like going off on this in the NY gay marriage thread, but I think this merits a new topic. Come with me, as I chronicle my descent into the pits of despair as my faith in the justice system declines over the years.

circa 1986:

I was a naive young child when I first understood the concept of justice. I was used to seeing it go straight from crime to (super)hero intervention to jail, but alas, this idealistic young vision was shattered when I caught my mother watching "Perry Mason" and "Matlock." She explained what a trial was in infantile terms and I mostly understood. After Superman, Batman, or just the plain 'ole police caught the bad guy, they couldn't just put him in jail becuase that wouldn't really be fair. Whoever caught him might be mistaken or could even be trying to send the guy to jail just because he doesn't like him, so they have a trial where the police and a lawyer (and possibly Superman or Batman or Danger Mouse or some other superhero) had to convince twelve other people he did it while a judge made sure they were fair. I walked away with a new understanding of justice, but still had faith that evil cops and judges and bad guys planting evidence were the only flaws in the system, and that Superman (or any other superhero) could catch them.

circa 1990:

In a blow that will set the trend for the rest of my life, a friend of the family was arrested for child molestation. One of the kids at the day care where she works tore her hymen falling off of a bike-like piece of playground equipment. It was an innocent accident, but the parents weren't convinced. They hired a psychologist who failed to account for the "I say what I think they want me to say," quirk in kids actually convinced the kid, over time, that she was molested. By the time the kid was seven, she was being dragged through court with the full belief that she was molested. She was traumatized for life and I think my parents' friend is finally up for probation this year.

circa 1992:

My first knowledge of Roe vs. Wade hit my brain while learning about government in school. This was my first real blow. "How can judges make laws?" I said to myself. I especially couldn't figure out how they made such a bad law. What was wrong with them? Congress made laws. Judges just made sure the guys Superman caught got a fair trial. Why didn't anybody stop them. It was lunacy. I still had faith that this was a "glitch in the system," but it required more investigation.

Summer 1994:

O.J. Simpson was arrested. I wasn't a big football fan, but had heard of him because he played with former Razorback (sooiee), Joe Ferguson. I didn't quite grasp what was going on, but I would...all too well.

1995:

It didn't take long, even for a Warcraft and Final Fantasy addicted 13-year old, to figure out that this trial was a sham. I watched the updates on T.V. as I saw that the gears of justice were grinding...not like a well oiled machine grinds gears, but the way a rusty machine that didn't have oil to start with grinds. That and a guy grinding his teeth at night...ugh. Where was I? Oh yes, the gears of justice. The jury spend more time sequestered than at trial, Cochran was a complete idiot, parading around with stupid rhymes like the trial was some sort of poetry slam. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit," became a slightly lesser pop culture icon of stupidity than its later successor, "All your base are belong to us." Not that the prosecutor was much better. I could see the crime having gone down either way, but the trial? The only stuff that made O.J. look innocent never made its way to the jurors. Then, the jurors acquitted him anyway. I remember us all getting out of class to see the verdict and we couldn't believe it. It was so retarded. I thought the bad guys went to jail. Kalel had failed me for the last time... I turned my back on thinking the police sent bad guys to jail. Soon afterwords, I fully found out that the appeals system can keep a death penalty from happening for decades. No longer did cops send bad guys to jail in my mind. Cops sent bad guys to trial and prosecutors sent them to jail...no thanks to the judges, and defense lawyers were crap.

1996:

At 14, I got my first exposure to "Law and Order." I love the show, but seeing a realistic presentation of the justice system made me realize that the real villians were high-profile defense attorneys. They'd fight tooth and nail to keep really bad guys from going to jail, even though they knew their clients were REALLY freakin' bad guys. What's worse is that not only did this not get them a butt-kicking from a superhero, it got them paid a lot more than my dad could ever hope to make, and he's a CPA...a lot more...I'm not talking about multiplying my dad's salary, we're talking exponents (not really, but you get the point...maybe exponents between one and two).

1998:

Eleven girls are gunned down at a Jonesboro school. Many of my friends at ASMS (Arkasas School for Math and Science) went there. I saw the looks on their faces. I couldn't believe it myself. Two kids not only killed their parents and classmates in cold blood, the classmates were girls. Had they no decency left? I wanted to see them rot in jail for life, but what's this? They're "only kids" (only kids my a**, if you're old enough to shoot people dead, you're old enough to go to jail) and the most the law can do is lock them away in a minimum security playschool until they're 18, only 6 years for the younger one. My dream of Superman...or even Batman helping us was completely shattered. At that point, I would've settled for Daredevil, but alas...

Also in 1998:

I discovered mp3's, roms, and warez on mIRC. Anybody who doesn't know where this is going should shoot themselves for the good of the species.

2000:

While in the Naval Academy, already undergoing stress like most of you can't imagine (notice I said most, those in boot camp can empathize and the rest of you can step back, cause sympathy doesn't work, only empathy), I find out that the Ninth Circuit ruled against Napster and I was nowhere near a place to go download crazy. Fortunately, appeals kept it alive until I could milk it. Now, I had lost faith in companies. I remembered thinking what a load of crap "Captain Planet" was. I remembered thinking, "Why would anybody do something that p.o.'s their own customers with no profit incentive whatsoever?" At that moment, I knew Captain Planet was right, but I knew he couldn't save us because the heart power is frickin' gay and only five non-gay powers can defeat something as large as the RIAA. It's like attacking Russia using automatic firearms, artillery, tanks, air support, and trendy fashion. That last one kinda ruins the whole thing. No, Captain Planet would not save us from the evil corporations. The bad guys had won.

The justice system scored a victory in my eyes, though, when it shut down the Florida binge-whining labeled as a recount. I didn't think Bush would get sworn in until I was 40 and Al Gore definitely needed a nap.

2001:

A string of lawsuits attempted, but failed, to shut down Napster's replacements. I thought, "The judges in Roe vs. Wade and a few other cases since then (Hawaii Supreme court and gay marriage anyone?) had made their own laws to force progressive ideologies on us, so why didn't they do the same thing to force common sense on the RIAA? That is when I realized that only evil would come from the dark side. A recession soon hit after 9/11, causing a decline in sales of everything except music. Only illegal downloading could possibly have cause a decline in music sales, despite the fact that by this time, all CDs were just previous CDs with different names on them and the original CDs sucked in the first place except for maybe one song each, that and the the fact that word was spreading that the Beatles songs, bastion of good music when music was actually music, were owned by Michael Jackson, largely thought to be a pedophile and largely known to be a sicko and an affeminate freak.

2002:

A friend of mine, 20 at the time, was at his cousin's house, 13 at the time, hanging out in her room. This cousin was like the little sister he never had, cause his sister was a jerk, and he loved her like he would love a sister. The only problem is that her mother hates him. Well, while they were chillin', he tripped and landed on her in a comprimizing position. They thought nothing of this, felt awkward for a moment, and went on with their day. Her mother caught wind of this and either brainwashed her or threatened her to get her to testify that she was molested. My friend was dragged out of a church service in cuffs and beat up in jail. His public defender was a wuss and incompetant, so to avoid jail time, my friend pleaded to a lesser charge, with 5 years probation, and large fine, mandatory counseling, and a restraining order against him coming close to the girl. He is also a registered sex offender. He's a good man and I'd trust him with my life, yet thanks to the integrity of our justice system, there's a black mark on his record and he'll never see his cousin again. The only up side is that he didn't have to go to Iraq.

2003:

Grannies sued for sharing because some hacker parked his stash on their box. College professors sued for sharing because some homework files contain the words '50' and/or 'cent.' Kid in the ghetto sued on national TV. Settlemen payed for via Pay Pal. Non-Mexican who hates Latino music sued for sharing thousands of Latino songs while out of the country with his computer unplugged. I found out about the DMCA and how you don't even really need a copyright to get somebody's name and address using just their IP address and how you can't bypass gay region encoding because it's part of the copy protection. I see many more lawsuits filed against people for just looking at a piece of technology that might be used to violate "intellectual property rights." I fully expect a crowbar manufacturer to be sued because a crowbar may be used to bypass the theft and copy protection implemented by the distributor after hours. I also find out that when somebody finally decided to stop griping about Battle.net and prove they could do better, they get sued because suddenly, a multiplayer game finder is copy protection just because it compares CD keys. There is only one laugh during this whole fiasco. The gay copy protection that keeps CDs from being read by computers or non-RIAA approved CD players (btw, yours is not approved, so you'll have to buy another$$$$) can be bypassed by a sharpie...brilliant. Oh, and the previous encryption was posted on the internet with a challenge to crack it. Those who took up the challenge were sued. Only their victories, amid plaintiff loss in almost every other frivilous case that year, kept me sane.

2004:

After further review, I think it should be a crime to make empty threats with the justice system. I saw too many anti-whatever sites shut down because fanboys pretending to be legal representatives scared them off with cease and decist letters. Glenn Beck even had to change theme songs because the "artists" of the song he parodied threatened to sue, despite the fact that the nineteen seventy...something copyright act allows unauthorized use of copyrighted work for purpose of critique and parody.

Robert Blake's trial hasn't entered jury selection...WTF?!

Marvel (only Marvel, DC retained a bit of sanity) sues the makers of "City of Heroes" since players can theoretically make clones of Marvel characters. Apparently, Marvel has copyrighted laser eyes *cough*Superman*cough*, metal claws, weather control, fire, and any costume involving spandex. Maybe next, we should go after pencil manufacturers, since their users constantly draw derivations of copyrighted art. Then, we could attack cloth factories, since their products can be used to create non-authorized costume replicas. The fact that the case wasn't dismissed on day one is a traveshamockery (travesty, sham, mockery). Oh Spiderman, thou hast left me. Your creators have turned on us.

2005:

Not content to leave my friend alone (see 2002), the police search his computer without a warrent. They turned up a few risque anime screenshots and declared it pornography, a violation of his parole. They arrested him on a trumped up charge with a mandatory 10 year sentence because they believe so much that he's not only guilty of the first crime and willing to commit it again, but that they're justified in taking illegal and unethical measures to keep him locked up. Their zealousness with this sex offender thing is what got him moved out of the dorm in the first place.

In general, the following repeated events have ticked me off.

Every time a member of the legal profession wishes he could have been on the Supreme Court during the 2000 election.

Every time the Ninth Circuit says...anything.

Every time the MA Supreme Court says...anything.

Every time the RIAA or MPAA say...anything.

Every time I hear the words "Intellectual Property."

Repeated events that have restored faith:

I'm still thinking.

In short, my formerly high opinion of the justice system has eroded away into a pebble. I can barely hang on to my faith in the system.

 

[Hobbit]

Wow, didn't realize it was that long. For the love of all that is holy, nobody hit the 'quote' button.

 

[CSM]

Wow, didn't realize it was that long. For the love of all that is holy, nobody hit the 'quote' button.

You sound a wee bit ticked at the justice system

 

[Shattered]

Do you know how bizzare 1986, and 2002 sound? How far-fetched? Whether true, or not, there's not a lot of chance rational people are going to believe them.

 

[krisy]

It's sad how much of this stuff goes on. I don't believe you are innocent until proven guilty anymore,but guilty until proven innocent. Some of these cases are absurd. I believe the prosecutors office and the public defenders are to blame for so much. Defenders defending people they know are guilty. Sure they have a job to do,but with a conscience? Prosecutors dragging people through the mud that they know are innocent. I love the show Law and Order,and I know it's just a show,but sometimes those prosecutors and defense attorneys alike go a little too far!

 

[dmp]

Excellent piece, Hobbit...may I borrow some of that intelectual property of yours and send that to a few friends? Maybe post it again?

 

[Hobbit]

Do you know how bizzare 1986, and 2002 sound? How far-fetched? Whether true, or not, there's not a lot of chance rational people are going to believe them.

Eh, I call 'em like I see 'em. What's so far-fetched about 1986 anyway (maybe you were referring to 1990)? My mom was watching court shows and being a curious little kid, I asked simplistic questions to which I got simplistic answers. I seem to remember my idea of a trial being very skewed and simplistic, but I was a little kid, and that's expected. Now that I think of it, I seem to remeber wondering what the purpose was of having both a judge and a jury.

As far as the 2002 case, I remember it quite vividly. It was only 3 years ago and it's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. The defense attorney was a wussy boy, the prosecutor was a feminazi, and most of the people in the court had decided his guilt when he walked in the door. Never mind that this guy is trusted by dozens of members of his church, a terrified little girl and her bitter, hateful mother say something might have happened, so let's lock up the scumbag and throw away the key. Don't get me wrong, I wanna see child molestors suffer just like everybody else, but I'd like to be sure they're child molestors first.

You sound a wee bit ticked at the justice system

More sadness than anger at the justice system itself. I want to believe in it, but I can't. The anger is directed at those who exploit the system and those inside the system who let him.

 

[Hobbit]

Excellent piece, Hobbit...may I borrow some of that intelectual property of yours and send that to a few friends? Maybe post it again?

Feel free. I'm more interested in having my art read than sucking money out of those want to read it.

 

[Shattered]

Eh, I call 'em like I see 'em. What's so far-fetched about 1986 anyway (maybe you were referring to 1990)? My mom was watching court shows and being a curious little kid, I asked simplistic questions to which I got simplistic answers. I seem to remember my idea of a trial being very skewed and simplistic, but I was a little kid, and that's expected. Now that I think of it, I seem to remeber wondering what the purpose was of having both a judge and a jury.

As far as the 2002 case, I remember it quite vividly. It was only 3 years ago and it's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. The defense attorney was a wussy boy, the prosecutor was a feminazi, and most of the people in the court had decided his guilt when he walked in the door. Never mind that this guy is trusted by dozens of members of his church, a terrified little girl and her bitter, hateful mother say something might have happened, so let's lock up the scumbag and throw away the key. Don't get me wrong, I wanna see child molestors suffer just like everybody else, but I'd like to be sure they're child molestors first.



More sadness than anger at the justice system itself. I want to believe in it, but I can't. The anger is directed at those who exploit the system and those inside the system who let him.

Maybe I did get the year confused? I was referring to the 20-year old "tripping" over the 13 year old, and landing in a compromising position.. That stuff happens on TV..

As for the little girl with the bicycle-type aparatus... In instances like that, they generally do a complete medical check, and an injury is going to show differently than actual penetration.. (I have a 10 year old niece going through this right now - charges were filed; not based on heresy, but on actual medical evidence...

I'm not saying this stuff didn't happen the way you say it did, as I don't know you, your family, or your friends - I'm just saying it sounds *really* far-fetched, and would to pretty much anyone; especially someone that's actually been through something like that.

Children don't easily make thinks up without prodding, but even with prodding, their minds aren'y developed enough to keep track of the same story, so eventually the truth does come out.

 

[dmp]

Maybe I did get the year confused? I was referring to the 20-year old "tripping" over the 13 year old, and landing in a compromising position.. That stuff happens on TV..

As for the little girl with the bicycle-type aparatus... In instances like that, they generally do a complete medical check, and an injury is going to show differently than actual penetration.. (I have a 10 year old niece going through this right now - charges were filed; not based on heresy, but on actual medical evidence...

I'm not saying this stuff didn't happen the way you say it did, as I don't know you, your family, or your friends - I'm just saying it sounds *really* far-fetched, and would to pretty much anyone; especially someone that's actually been through something like that.

Children don't easily make thinks up without prodding, but even with prodding, their minds aren'y developed enough to keep track of the same story, so eventually the truth does come out.

Children can lie as well, or better than adults.

 

[no1tovote4]

For me it was finding out too late about the McDonald's retirement plan.

Spill some coffee on your own crotch, get $6,000,000 from a jury in punishment for McDonald's making coffee hot. I guess it isn't enough that people know that coffee is hot and to be careful with it, there must be some sort of warning that the coffee is hot and that if you spill it on your crotch it might hurt and cause damage.

Even taking into account they made it very hot on purpose in order to cut down on refills doesn't make it worth that much just for spilling coffee on yourself.

Now had the employee got mad and threw the coffee on her....

McDonald's coffee is crappy enough, to make it so fricking cold that you can actually taste it is a traveshammockery of its own. I actually liked the coffee when it was hot, but now I go elsewhere where they serve actually hot coffee.


I also look at warning labels that are on products in my house, they are hilarious many times but each time I see one of those I remember that it came from a lawsuit.

I have an iron that has a warning on it, "Do not use while sleeping... and Do not iron clothes while wearing them" Now truly if I am sleepwalking will I read the warning before I use the product?

I have a roll-on deoderant that I got in the 1990s that says, "Do not apply to eyes..." Now I have never had stink-eye but I hear it is really awful, shouldn't they make a product for that too?

I have a hair dryer that not only warns about using it while sleeping but also warns, "Do not use in tub..." I guess I should stop using mine to make bubbles in the water...

There are more but I think we can all get the picture here. This type of lawsuit actually making it to a jury trial is shocking to me, but when the jury awards these huge "punitive" damages it only angers me and sane people across the land.

 

[Hobbit]

Maybe I did get the year confused? I was referring to the 20-year old "tripping" over the 13 year old, and landing in a compromising position.. That stuff happens on TV..

As for the little girl with the bicycle-type aparatus... In instances like that, they generally do a complete medical check, and an injury is going to show differently than actual penetration.. (I have a 10 year old niece going through this right now - charges were filed; not based on heresy, but on actual medical evidence...

I'm not saying this stuff didn't happen the way you say it did, as I don't know you, your family, or your friends - I'm just saying it sounds *really* far-fetched, and would to pretty much anyone; especially someone that's actually been through something like that.

Children don't easily make thinks up without prodding, but even with prodding, their minds aren'y developed enough to keep track of the same story, so eventually the truth does come out.

I can give a bit on the 1990 one. I was 8. However, what I remember vividly is the fact that this person was charged and did spend time in jail, based almost solely on the child's testimony. The kid doesn't have to say much, and will say whatever he/she thinks the adults want him/her to say. Oh, and I remember being a kid. They'll make stuff up with no prodding whatsoever if they think there's something in it for them. The hard part for them is making it believable.

However, the 2002 story sticks. I can see how the original situation could happen. When you're falling, instinct takes over and you catch yourself however you can. I've quite nearly made a similar goof-up.

I understand the skepticism, but keep in mind that these aren't some third party accounts I heard of through e-mail. These things happened to my friends.

 

[Shattered]

Children can lie as well, or better than adults.

They can.. Initially.. They just can't keep the lie going when questioned from different angles...until they hit their early teen years.

In a case like this, though, they should be relying only on medical examinations - not verbal accusations.. A verbal accusation like that can damage a man for *life*, whether it's true or not. As utterly unfair as it is, it happens.

 

[Shattered]

I can give a bit on the 1990 one. I was 8. However, what I remember vividly is the fact that this person was charged and did spend time in jail, based almost solely on the child's testimony. The kid doesn't have to say much, and will say whatever he/she thinks the adults want him/her to say. Oh, and I remember being a kid. They'll make stuff up with no prodding whatsoever if they think there's something in it for them. The hard part for them is making it believable.

However, the 2002 story sticks. I can see how the original situation could happen. When you're falling, instinct takes over and you catch yourself however you can. I've quite nearly made a similar goof-up.

I understand the skepticism, but keep in mind that these aren't some third party accounts I heard of through e-mail. These things happened to my friends.

Well, things have changed quite a bit, from your dates... Now they don't typically just take anyones word for it.. Tests, examinations, etc. all play a large part in everything. Hopefully things get better...

 

[krisy]

Kids will carry on a lie as long as they want to if they think they will get into trouble when they tell the truth. It all depends on the kids personality. A child will also start to believe what they are being told if they are young enough.

I saw on the local news a few years back that 3 million of the 4 million reported cases of child abuse are bogus. It happens,but people have got to be rational about it. To many people aren't and it seems they want to believe something that isn't true. I remember watching a nightly news show a couple of years back where the woman giving the child an interview was guiding the girl big time. Eventually,the girl told the woman-"you touched me"!! The look on that woman's face was priceless. Abuse does go on,but our society HAS to be careful about this stuff. Too many have had their lives ruined.

 

[Hobbit]

Hehe, check the ads at the top of the thread.

Now I, personally, never thought the 2002 case would fly. There was virtually no evidence. It was a he said/she said case. However, his defense attorney wanted to cave and the prosecutor scared the hell out of him. I told him not to give in and see if he could get a different lawyer, but he didn't take my advice.

 

[dmp]

For me it was finding out too late about the McDonald's retirement plan.

Spill some coffee on your own crotch, get $6,000,000 from a jury in punishment for McDonald's making coffee hot. I guess it isn't enough that people know that coffee is hot and to be careful with it, there must be some sort of warning that the coffee is hot and that if you spill it on your crotch it might hurt and cause damage.

Even taking into account they made it very hot on purpose in order to cut down on refills doesn't make it worth that much just for spilling coffee on yourself.

Now had the employee got mad and threw the coffee on her....

McDonald's coffee is crappy enough, to make it so fricking cold that you can actually taste it is a traveshammockery of its own. I actually liked the coffee when it was hot, but now I go elsewhere where they serve actually hot coffee.

Good reading...

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years

Another take on it

In the discussion about whether people file worthless lawsuits, once again, the eight-year-old spectre of people who "sue because coffee was too hot" came up. This is the typical example of a runaway lawsuit culture: some woman who orders hot coffee, gets hot coffee, and sues because it's hot. As this link from Public Citizen shows, that's not what happened.

Adults enjoy very hot beverages, close to 95°C (over 200°F), but we know how to sip them very slowly with lots of cooling air, and even we occasionally burn our tongues. When we spill such beverages on our skin, we know to wave the affected area around to cool it rapidly, or run it under cold water ASAP. Children and senior citizens have more sensitive and thinner skin, and just one second of hot coffee on a child's arm can cause a full-penetration third-degree burn. Lots of organizations warn about the dangers of hot liquid around children.

In the famous McDonald's case, a 79-year-old woman was served 180°F to 190°F coffee (82°C to 89°C) in a thin cup in a drive-thru. She put the cup between her legs to stabilize it -- trying to be careful -- and removed the lid to add cream and sugar. The coffee sloshed out upon removing the lid, quickly giving her third-degree burns across her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks. She spent eight days in a hospital, had to go through skin grafts, and was disabled for more than two years -- all for a 49-cent cup of coffee in a flimsy cup that McDonald's served way, way too hot for a drive-in window.

And the company knew, too. The company had received "at least 700" scalding coffee reports in the previous ten years, some involving children ("Go get Daddy a refill" shouldn't be a dangerous statement). It settled some of these claims for up to $500,000. In this case, the woman's medical bills totalled over $11,000. McDonald's offered her $800 to go away. A court-appointed mediator recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, but the company refused, went to trial -- and was hit with $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced to $160,000 as the jury attributed 20% of the fault to the woman for having the coffee in her lap), and $2.7 million in punitive damages, based on the fact that at that time, McDonald's earned $1.35 million per day in coffee revenues. The damage award was two days' worth of McDonald's corporate coffee income. Even that was later reduced to $480,000, but before the appeals could be decided, the woman and McDonald's settled privately with undisclosed and confidential terms.

$480,000 is the money McDonald's takes in for coffee sales in 8.5 hours, and that was eight years ago.

Now comes the fun part: not jumping to conclusions. Insisting that all coffee be served no hotter than 120°F (50°C) is just as much a kid-proofing of the world as insisting that all Internet content be censored unless its suitable for 12-year-olds. However, given a ten-year history of complaints about physical injuries from coffee burns, what should McDonald's have done? Served the coffee in more spill-proof cups? Provided better containers for adding cream and sugar without the risk of a spill in a car? Lowered the temperature some?

Each of these actions would have cost McDonald's money and reduced profit, but they would have spared people from physical injury, including the horribly debilitating one experienced by the woman in this case. This woman took a cup of coffee given from a drive-thru (allegedly designed for car drinking), added the cream and sugar from the provided receptacles (as designed), and wound up with burns that required skin grafts -- and McDonald's corporate offices knew the designs were injuring people combined with the temperature of the coffee.

Punitive damages are designed to change a company's behavior, to make it start behaving more responsibly instead of hurting people in the name of profit. They're punishment -- hence the name "punitive." Juries that find irresponsibility undeserving of punishment can compensate victims without awarding punitive damages. Within days of this verdict, the corporate spinmeisters that want no oversight of any business action had made this into a joke about a woman too dumb to drink coffee. The jury, who heard the facts, found that the woman was doing exactly what she was supposed to do with the coffee and suffered for two years because of it -- and that McDonald's could have prevented it because the company knew these injuries were happening. It was just cheaper to pay off the people who actually sued than stop the injuries.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hehe, check the ads at the top of the thread.

Now I, personally, never thought the 2002 case would fly. There was virtually no evidence. It was a he said/she said case. However, his defense attorney wanted to cave and the prosecutor scared the hell out of him. I told him not to give in and see if he could get a different lawyer, but he didn't take my advice.

If he has a strong case, I think he might still be able to get a lawyer to expunge his record.

 

[no1tovote4]

Good reading...



Another take on it

My point is, that I think it was simply excessive given the fact that the coffee was supposed to be hot.

I never said that the lawsuit was necessarily wrong itself, just that the jury would award such a punitive amount to one person makes it a lawsuit lottery rather than justice. If the punitive damages went to every person that may have been injured by the "excessive heat" of the coffee I would begin to agree with it, however it is not justice to give one person all the money in order to "change the behavior" of a company there are other ways such changes could be effected.

My point is, that it is not "justice" to make one person who sues the lottery winner when more than one suffered.

And if you read the second story you posted adults like coffee to be hot and the McDonald's coffee was within the temp that most adults like their coffee (in fact it was about 6 to 13 degrees celcius COLDER than what most Adults like), as I said before I would not order coffee at McDonald's they now serve it too cold.

And I said in my original post that even if the company purposefully set the temp too high in order to make for less refills, it still doesn't make them liable to one person in the amount of $6,000,000. At least not in the name of justice it doesn't....

If I had known about this, I would have spilled some on myself and sued in order to win that lottery, it would be well worth it.

If you notice every story that comes out is in defense of the lawsuit and very few are from the defense side. I would like to see a paper written by the Defense attorneys about the case and see what their take on it is. There are always two sides to a story, you shouldn't jump on one bandwagon because you find some stories that support the juries "punitive" damages assesed in this case.

 

[dmp]

My point is, that I think it was simply excessive given the fact that the coffee was supposed to be hot.

I never said that the lawsuit was necessarily wrong itself, just that the jury would award such a punitive amount to one person makes it a lawsuit lottery rather than justice. If the punitive damages went to every person that may have been injured by the "excessive heat" of the coffee I would begin to agree with it, however it is not justice to give one person all the money in order to "change the behavior" of a company there are other ways such changes could be effected.

My point is, that it is not "justice" to make one person who sues the lottery winner when more than one suffered.

And if you read the second story you posted adults like coffee to be hot and the McDonald's coffee was within the temp that most adults like their coffee (in fact it was about 6 to 13 degrees celcius COLDER than what most Adults like), as I said before I would not order coffee at McDonald's they now serve it too cold.

And I said in my original post that even if the company purposefully set the temp too high in order to make for less refills, it still doesn't make them liable to one person in the amount of $6,000,000. At least not in the name of justice it doesn't....

If I had known about this, I would have spilled some on myself and sued in order to win that lottery, it would be well worth it.

If you notice every story that comes out is in defense of the lawsuit and very few are from the defense side. I would like to see a paper written by the Defense attorneys about the case and see what their take on it is. There are always two sides to a story, you shouldn't jump on one bandwagon because you find some stories that support the juries "punitive" damages assesed in this case.

...but nobody got $6,000,000. She got $480,000 or LESS....for TWO YEARS of recovery...skin-grafs my good friend. We're talking severe damage. We're talking about a company who had recorded evidence that their product container and/or product could damage people.

(shrug).