Thread: Burned fan sues Cowboys

Originally Posted by Dzone

Theres too many damn attorneys looking for a way to make a buck. Too many TV attorney commercials telling people they can get rich. Its called SLEAZE

That and free enterprise.

Originally Posted by topscribe

It'll be interesting to see what comes of it. Another woman got a seven-figure
award from a suit she filed against McDonald's after spilling hot coffee on
herself.

It's a dangerous world out there . . .
.

But her lawsuit wasn't BS. That McDonalds knew that the coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature and it caused her third degree burns. All she sued for was for her medical expenses and the money she missed out on from work. The jury awarded her a shit ton. It got appealed and changed. She wasn't out for blood, McDonalds was negligent, I've spilled coffee on myself before and I didn't get third degree burns.

I would like to see the judge stand up to this type of frivolousness and tell the plaintiff and her ambulance chasing attorney to get bent. He/she shouldn't even have to hear the case, and the courts shouldn't have to waste their time dealing with cases like this.

Originally Posted by King87

But her lawsuit wasn't BS. That McDonalds knew that the coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature and it caused her third degree burns. All she sued for was for her medical expenses and the money she missed out on from work. The jury awarded her a shit ton. It got appealed and changed. She wasn't out for blood, McDonalds was negligent, I've spilled coffee on myself before and I didn't get third degree burns.

It was a drive through window and she put the coffee between her legs. It is the EPITOME example of ridiculous lawsuits, and is why laws have changed BECAUSE of that frivolous suit.

Originally Posted by King87

But her lawsuit wasn't BS. That McDonalds knew that the coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature and it caused her third degree burns. All she sued for was for her medical expenses and the money she missed out on from work. The jury awarded her a shit ton. It got appealed and changed. She wasn't out for blood, McDonalds was negligent, I've spilled coffee on myself before and I didn't get third degree burns.

There were no lost earnings. She was 79 years old. Here are some of the specifics of the case:

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.

Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

So, it all ended up in a settlement of ~$600,000. All the stuff about McDonalds being negligent by serving their coffee too hot (~180F) has been disproven by several "experts" and in similar lawsuits filed in the UK have all been thrown out since. The prosecution's whole stance was that the coffee was too hot and had they say served it at 140F then it wouldn't have caused 3rd degree burns. This has been since proven false.

IMO, holding a hot cup of coffee between her thighs makes her as negligent at McDonalds.

I recall a lawsuit filed by a man who had broken his back when his small plane crashed in a field. He was suing the manufacturer of the chair for not constructing it so as to withstand the impact of a ground collision. Now the plane crashed because of "pilot error" (the plaintive) but rather than suing himself for being an awful pilot or thanking the plane manufacturer for saving his life, this man decided that the company who made the chair was at fault for not making it capable of supporting his back in a crash. This is one of the reasons insurance claims are through the roof, friends.

Every time you get an electronic appliance of some type, do read the instruction manual because half of it now is often filled with idiot warnings so the company can say they warned idiots not to, say, operate the George Foreman mini-grill in a bathtub or shower. Every time you read those idiot warnings understand that those things are in there because likely some idiot has done it and then had the nerve to sue the manufacturer for not telling them they shouldn't do something only an idiot would do.

It doesn't. You can't sell coffee that is that hot. It's unsafe. Coffee should not be so hot that it causes third degree burns. She also asked to settle for 20k which is around the expenses, and they didn't. People spill drinks. We've all done it. It's not like the guy who sued and won because the lawnmower they turned into a racing vehicle wasn't sturdy enough to withstand high speeds. That's garbage and is wrong. There's a clear difference to me.

Originally Posted by King87

It doesn't. You can't sell coffee that is that hot. It's unsafe. Coffee should not be so hot that it causes third degree burns. She also asked to settle for 20k which is around the expenses, and they didn't. People spill drinks. We've all done it. It's not like the guy who sued and won because the lawnmower they turned into a racing vehicle wasn't sturdy enough to withstand high speeds. That's garbage and is wrong. There's a clear difference to me.

So, please tell me what is "safe"? Starbucks heats their coffee to 180F and steams their milk for lattes and cappuccinos to 160F. I guess they're unsafe, too. The average drip coffee maker heats coffee to between 160-170F. How often is "Mr Coffee" sued? Seriously, if someone doesn't realize that coffee is hot and can possible scald you, they need another lesson with the stove and or the iron. Like I said in my post, even lowering the temperature to 140F (which means it gets cold much faster) can and will cause 3rd degree burns and deep tissue damage - it was proven in an experiment by the Brits.

I'm surprised that GE hasn't gotten sued because someone burned themselves on their stove or that Hungry Man hasn't gotten sued about their TV dinner desserts (which reach roughly the temperature of the sun) burning people. Is it only okay if you cook it yourself? Should McDonalds and every other restaurant only serve cold food that you must take home and reheat so they are blameless when you burn yourself?

The caution label was on the cup of coffee. The woman was 79 years old - not like she didn't know it would be hot. She chose to ignore the fact that coffee is hot, held the cup between her knees in a car (it was parked) instead of using a cup holder, defeated the lid which is designed to prevent spills, and then promptly spilled it on the most sensitive part of her body. Sometimes, they give out those "Darwin Awards" for a reason...

Do you understand the term punitive damages? When they dissected all the facts they found that A. McDonalds had a history of serving their coffee too hot and had incidents with it before. The big check that she got was for punitive measures. I.E. it's a corporation so you can't do much to them sans fiscal sanctions. The sum was reduced. http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/b...ges-Award.html

Have a crack at that. It's opinionated, the opinion of a lawyer, but it's as good of an opinion on the matter as anyone else's.

Here's a funny comment from the Deadspin article about this:

"Not only did the client endure needless pain and suffering, the complaint alleges, but the incident has decimated her burgeoning career as a medium-rare-rump-roast model."

The McDonalds case is absolutely ridiculous. I'm stunned anyone would defend this. King, who hates anyone on the broncos that has raised their voices, is actually defending a woman suing for spilling coffee on her lap. It's amazing to me.