FOX News - not fair and balanced

[SpidermanTuba]

I just heard one of Fox's analysts mention the McDonald's coffee case in passing, treating it as if it were some frivolous absurd lawsuit.

It always amazes me how few people know the facts of this case. Certainly, if I spill coffee on myself, I should expect to perhaps receive minor burns. I should not expect to receive 3rd degree burns over 6% of my body, be hospitalized for 8 days, and require skin grafts.
180 degrees F is closer in temp to boiling water, at 212 F, than it is to the temp of ordinary coffee, at 140 F

The lady offered to settle for a mere $20k. McDonalds refused.

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. ©1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of
California

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

[Annie]

I just heard one of Fox's analysts mention the McDonald's coffee case in passing, treating it as if it were some frivolous absurd lawsuit.

It always amazes me how few people know the facts of this case. Certainly, if I spill coffee on myself, I should expect to perhaps receive minor burns. I should not expect to receive 3rd degree burns over 6% of my body, be hospitalized for 8 days, and require skin grafts.
180 degrees F is closer in temp to boiling water, at 212 F, than it is to the temp of ordinary coffee, at 140 F

The lady offered to settle for a mere $20k. McDonalds refused.



http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

you are one warped dude. Ignore.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you are one warped dude. Ignore.

What is so warped about facts?

 

[jAZ]

What is so warped about facts?

They often shake your chosen political framework if you are a conservative.

 

[Annie]

They often shake your chosen political framework if you are a conservative.

Correct, but worse for liberals that must find a way to make them 'go away.'

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Correct, but worse for liberals that must find a way to make them 'go away.'

Example?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I just heard one of Fox's analysts mention the McDonald's coffee case in passing, treating it as if it were some frivolous absurd lawsuit.

It always amazes me how few people know the facts of this case. Certainly, if I spill coffee on myself, I should expect to perhaps receive minor burns. I should not expect to receive 3rd degree burns over 6% of my body, be hospitalized for 8 days, and require skin grafts.
180 degrees F is closer in temp to boiling water, at 212 F, than it is to the temp of ordinary coffee, at 140 F

The lady offered to settle for a mere $20k. McDonalds refused.



http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The question is how much is McDonalds responsible for what happened. She had a very hot cup of coffee (even in one of those cups she should have been able to tell it was very hot) and tried to open it in an awkward position. Common sense tells you that if hot liquid is spilled on you, it will burn. I'm sure she wouldn't have expected to get burned that bad, but the fact of the matter is it's not McDonalds fault she spilled it.

If the employee at the window spilled the coffee on the driver, that might have been different, but even then I don't know if it's worth almost $3,000,000.

It sucks that she got burned that bad, but the simple fact of the matter is the only reason that case was ever taken to court in the first place is because McDonalds has deep pockets. If that had happened at Ma and Pa's Coffee Shop, she would have just been another clumsy coffee drinker.

As far as Fox News, I didn't see it, and I don't know who brought it up or how.

 

[Hobbit]

As far as Fox News, I didn't see it, and I don't know who brought it up or how.

It's like that game "Seven Steps to Kevin Bacon." If a liberal can put something they percieve as wrong within seven steps of Fox News or Bush (or Cheney, or Rove, or...etc.), then it makes them personally responsible.

The fact of the matter is that the average American saw the McDonald's coffee spill as a ridiculous, frivilous lawsuit that had the sole purpose of making the whiney little brat and her lawyers rich. Even if that's not the way it happened, that's how most people see it.

 

[theHawk]

Why would you finger out FoxNews on this? I remember when that happened years ago the entire media covered it the same way.


The fact that she spilled it seems to me irrelavant in this case, what if she just started to drink it? Wouldnt that had burned the inside of her mouth? McDonalds should not had been keeping their coffee at a temperature that high. And they even admit it wasn't a one time mistake, its their policy to keep it that high. Thats a stupid policy.

 

[GotZoom]

Everybody.....May I have your attention Please!!!!

Listen up......EVERYBODY.....LISTEN

We should all congratulate ourselves. We have, once again, turned an ill-prepared and uninformed lib into a bluthering fool.

Let me introduce you to SpidermanTuba.

Back in October, he was posting threads about Bush violating Civil Right.

December - started a poll about the U.S.A locking up innocents.

January - started a thread about "flamers" being prosecuted.

And here we are in February. Two of the last four threads he started this month were about us not going to Mars and a lawsuit about hot coffee that happened back in 1992.

Seems he is running out of things to bitch about. Or he realizes that he doesn't stand a chance arguing with us; we tend to "win" the discussions.

I think it is a little of both.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Everybody.....May I have your attention Please!!!!

Listen up......EVERYBODY.....LISTEN

We should all congratulate ourselves. We have, once again, turned an ill-prepared and uninformed lib into a bluthering fool.

Let me introduce you to SpidermanTuba.

Back in October, he was posting threads about Bush violating Civil Right.

December - started a poll about the U.S.A locking up innocents.

January - started a thread about "flamers" being prosecuted.

And here we are in February. Two of the last four threads he started this month were about us not going to Mars and a lawsuit about hot coffee that happened back in 1992.

Seems he is running out of things to bitch about. Or he realizes that he doesn't stand a chance arguing with us; we tend to "win" the discussions.

I think it is a little of both.

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. I'm expecting a "Reagan ignores AIDS" thread any day now, followed by the push to nominate Carter for a second term.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

It's like that game "Seven Steps to Kevin Bacon." If a liberal can put something they percieve as wrong within seven steps of Fox News or Bush (or Cheney, or Rove, or...etc.), then it makes them personally responsible.

The fact of the matter is that the average American saw the McDonald's coffee spill as a ridiculous, frivilous lawsuit that had the sole purpose of making the whiney little brat and her lawyers rich. Even if that's not the way it happened, that's how most people see it.

If he took all that into consideration, he couldn't get his big, bold Fox bashing thread title up there. You have to remember, he is a product of the MSM. Big headline that has little to do with the actual story, even if you don't find out until halfway through the article.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Everybody.....May I have your attention Please!!!!

Listen up......EVERYBODY.....LISTEN

We should all congratulate ourselves. We have, once again, turned an ill-prepared and uninformed lib into a bluthering fool.

Let me introduce you to SpidermanTuba.

Back in October, he was posting threads about Bush violating Civil Right.

December - started a poll about the U.S.A locking up innocents.

January - started a thread about "flamers" being prosecuted.

And here we are in February. Two of the last four threads he started this month were about us not going to Mars and a lawsuit about hot coffee that happened back in 1992.

Seems he is running out of things to bitch about. Or he realizes that he doesn't stand a chance arguing with us; we tend to "win" the discussions.

I think it is a little of both.

Nice overview, Z.

It's the dart board method of debating. Keep throwing out different faux complaints until something works for you. Now that I think about it, that pretty much sums up the MO of the leaders of the Democratic party.

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. I'm expecting a "Reagan ignores AIDS" thread any day now, followed by the push to nominate Carter for a second term.

Don't give him any ideas Jim

 

[jAZ]

Or he realizes that he doesn't stand a chance arguing with us; we tend to "win" the discussions.

If you feel the need to publicly declare yourself the winner of a discussion like this... well, you've just lost.

 

[manu1959]

If you feel the need to publicly declare yourself the winner of a discussion like this... well, you've just lost.

so you are the winner then?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The question is how much is McDonalds responsible for what happened. She had a very hot cup of coffee (even in one of those cups she should have been able to tell it was very hot) and tried to open it in an awkward position. Common sense tells you that if hot liquid is spilled on you, it will burn. I'm sure she wouldn't have expected to get burned that bad, but the fact of the matter is it's not McDonalds fault she spilled it.

Common sense does not tell you that if you spill hot coffee on you, you will receive 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body, spend 8 days in the hospital, and require skin grafts. If McDonald's have fully disclosed the extent of the danger of spilling their coffee, they probably wouldn't have sold much of it.

Also, what do you mean she should have been able to tell it was very hot? Are you supposed to carry a thermometer around with you? And no, you can't tell a how hot a liquid is on the other side of an insulating barrier. PErhaps if McDonalds had provided her with a cup of coffee at 140 F, so she could feel it, and compare it to her cup at 180 F.

Its not McDonald's fault she spilt it, but it isn't her fault that the coffee was kept at an insanely high temperature. Are you suggesting auto-manufacturer's shouldn't be responsible for defective seatbelts? Afterall, it isn't their reposibility that you got in a wreck, is it?

The jury found McDonalds 80% at fault, the plaintiff 20%. Had the coffee been at a reasonable temperature, the jury would have found the plaintiff 100% at fault. You simply can't expect to give someone an item which is FAR more dangerous than any reasonable person would suspect it is and then expect not to be at fault when they get hurt. And I think you would have to agree that something that will put you in ther hospital for 8 days and require skin to be taken off your ass to put somewhere else on your body is far more dangerous than something that at worse will give you a minor burn.

If the employee at the window spilled the coffee on the driver, that might have been different, but even then I don't know if it's worth almost $3,000,000.

Did you even read the article? a) she offered to settle for $20,000. The jury decided on the $3,000,000 figure. b) The final dollar amount on the case is unknown, as the two parties ended up settling out of court, to prevent further appeals, for an undisclosed amount.

almost 90% of the original jury verdict was for punitive damages, 2 days of coffee sales for McDonalds. So they jury only decided she was owed for comensation a couple $160000 (isn't that it? Read the article). Should punitive damages go to the plaintiff? Or to some other entity, like the state, or some sort of charitable fund? That's another debate.

It sucks that she got burned that bad, but the simple fact of the matter is the only reason that case was ever taken to court in the first place is because McDonalds has deep pockets.

The only reason the case was taken to court in the first place is because McDonald's refused to pay the woman a very reasonable settlement offer of $20,000.

Incidently, suing someone who can't pay you is just a waste of time, I'm sure you're aware of that. If it had been some homeless man who had sold her the coffee, sure, he would have been equally at fault, but there's no point in wasting your time with a suit that will lead to nothing.

If that had happened at Ma and Pa's Coffee Shop, she would have just been another clumsy coffee drinker.

Ma and Pa don't keep their coffee at 180 F, and if they did, they would have reduced the temperature to a sensible level after the first serious burn complaint, instead of after 700 of them.

 

[GotZoom]

Go Spidey....Go Spidey......


Show us that passion....that "fight for all that is fair and just"....at McDonalds.

 

[GotZoom]

If you feel the need to publicly declare yourself the winner of a discussion like this... well, you've just lost.

Why?

 

[dmp]

The lady deserved EVERYTHING she got from that Coffee - Honestly. I believe it.

BUT...it's really stupid for SMT to take a comment by a personality on a newshow, said off the cuff, and thereby conclude the ENTIRE organization is somehow biased.