Lawyer Sues Over $2.25 Cup Of Soup, Because Sure Why Not

[Bob78164]

Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?

and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.

The issue here is really with the manufacturer of her pants, which melted to her skin and caused her burns. Clothing should not be made to melt in such a way as that is a safety hazard which wouldn't be readily known to the consumer as hot coffee is known to be hot. She should've sued the maker of her pants.

Another case of lawyers doing their job, but judges being lazy and not doing theirs.

Are you aware that McDonald's knew, at the time of the incident, that the coffee it was serving was so hot that it had caused second and third degree burns to multiple other people? That they'd been warned further such incidents were likely, if not certain? That they made a deliberate (and documented) decision not to lower the temperature at which coffee was served despite this knowledge?

Juries usually get it right, and I have no reason to think this case was an exception. Most judges are pretty good as well, and the judge in this case dramatically reduced the punitive damage award. So, given the facts of the case (available, I'm sure, via snopes), what precisely is your issue with the jury's decision? --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?

and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.

The issue here is really with the manufacturer of her pants, which melted to her skin and caused her burns. Clothing should not be made to melt in such a way as that is a safety hazard which wouldn't be readily known to the consumer as hot coffee is known to be hot. She should've sued the maker of her pants.

Another case of lawyers doing their job, but judges being lazy and not doing theirs.

Just want to make sure I' m clear here. It's frivolous to sue McD's for serving potentially burning hot coffee at a drive-through, but not frivolous for cotton sweatpants manufacturers to not take into account that customers might spill nearly boiling water on themselves, and change to some other material that wouldn't hold the burning liquid close to the skin? (I can't find anything that said the pants melted.)

As with most one-sentence headline stories, the facts of the hot coffee case made it to be not frivolous, although if I were a juror in the case, I doubt I would have voted for the woman to win, much less the amount of damages they gave. Everyone in that case, including the judge, did their job correctly under the law as it was written. But boy, did it make for some interesting blurbs. And today, with social media? That woman would never be able to show her face again.

In a lot of cases, it's possible for more than one defendant to be negligent and depending on what the state law was at the time of the accident, the plaintiff generally has the right to decide which of the possible defendants to sue. In that case, it was McDonalds responsibility to bring the manufacturer of the sweatpants into the lawsuit if it cared to and could get service on them.

[triviawayne]

Just want to make sure I' m clear here. It's frivolous to sue McD's for serving potentially burning hot coffee at a drive-through, but not frivolous for cotton sweatpants manufacturers to not take into account that customers might spill nearly boiling water on themselves, and change to some other material that wouldn't hold the burning liquid close to the skin? (I can't find anything that said the pants melted.)

As with most one-sentence headline stories, the facts of the hot coffee case made it to be not frivolous, although if I were a juror in the case, I doubt I would have voted for the woman to win, much less the amount of damages they gave. Everyone in that case, including the judge, did their job correctly under the law as it was written. But boy, did it make for some interesting blurbs. And today, with social media? That woman would never be able to show her face again.

Yes, unless you are buying iced coffee, anyone over the age of two knows it is hot. It takes about 200 degrees to brew coffee, the water out of your shower head probably maxes around 110-120 degrees for comparison. Anything higher than about 140 could cause a burn to your skin.

The pants however, should be able to withstand higher temperatures without melting to the skin. It's not about clothing manufacturers taking into account customers spilling hot liquid on themselves, it's about taking into account the temperature of a fire if the person is faced with that situation.

Again, I don't blame her, her lawyer or the jury. The insane amount awarded is the fault of the judge.

For those that don't already know:

She was a passenger in a car at the drive-thru, got the coffee and they pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and sugar. When she opened the cup, her hands slipped and that's when the coffee spilled onto her lap. the pants she was wearing pretty much instantly melted to her skin--clothing should NEVER melt so quickly at such a temperature.

IIRC, the original lawsuit was for only a few hundred bucks, McDonald's refused.

[triviawayne]

Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?

and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.

The issue here is really with the manufacturer of her pants, which melted to her skin and caused her burns. Clothing should not be made to melt in such a way as that is a safety hazard which wouldn't be readily known to the consumer as hot coffee is known to be hot. She should've sued the maker of her pants.

Another case of lawyers doing their job, but judges being lazy and not doing theirs.

Are you aware that McDonald's knew, at the time of the incident, that the coffee it was serving was so hot that it had caused second and third degree burns to multiple other people? That they'd been warned further such incidents were likely, if not certain? That they made a deliberate (and documented) decision not to lower the temperature at which coffee was served despite this knowledge?

Juries usually get it right, and I have no reason to think this case was an exception. Most judges are pretty good as well, and the judge in this case dramatically reduced the punitive damage award. So, given the facts of the case (available, I'm sure, via snopes), what precisely is your issue with the jury's decision? --Bob

not the jury, jury's usually follow instructions given by...you guessed it, the judge.

My issue here is someone bought a product they knew to be hot and spilled it on themselves, then sued the maker of the product. The pants are the reason she suffered such burns, that is where the fault lies in this case. Clothing should never melt at such low temperatures.

[Bob Juch]

Please read this article, it has the full story.

Her sweat pants were cotton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

[triviawayne]

Please read this article, it has the full story.

Her sweat pants were cotton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

I know they were cotton, and made without any additive to prevent melting.

[Bob Juch]

Please read this article, it has the full story.

Her sweat pants were cotton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

I know they were cotton, and made without any additive to prevent melting.

Cotton does not melt.

[tlynn78]

not the jury, jury's usually follow instructions given by...you guessed it, the judge.

My issue here is someone bought a product they knew to be hot and spilled it on themselves, then sued the maker of the product. The pants are the reason she suffered such burns, that is where the fault lies in this case. Clothing should never melt at such low temperatures.

Have you ever served jury duty? The "instructions" are pretty much boilerplate, and the judge has virtually nothing to do with the amount awarded in a jury trial. The Plaintiff asks for what they want, the Defendant says why that (or any amount) is not the right amount, and the jury decides.

[Bob78164]

not the jury, jury's usually follow instructions given by...you guessed it, the judge.

My issue here is someone bought a product they knew to be hot and spilled it on themselves, then sued the maker of the product. The pants are the reason she suffered such burns, that is where the fault lies in this case. Clothing should never melt at such low temperatures.

Have you ever served jury duty? The "instructions" are pretty much boilerplate, and the judge has virtually nothing to do with the amount awarded in a jury trial. The Plaintiff asks for what they want, the Defendant says why that (or any amount) is not the right amount, and the jury decides.

Moreover, the judge granted remittitur, giving the plaintiff a choice between accepting a substantially lower punitive damage award and facing a new trial. --Bob

[triviawayne]

Please read this article, it has the full story.

Her sweat pants were cotton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v ... estaurants

I know they were cotton, and made without any additive to prevent melting.

Cotton does not melt.

burns then, happy?

still missing the point I was making about "well no crap coffee is hot", the pants were the problem.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I for one will never wear pants while drinking coffee.
an opposing view on coffee litigation
http://abnormaluse.com/2016/02/revoluti ... ornia.html

[Bob78164]

I for one will never wear pants while drinking coffee.
an opposing view on coffee litigation
http://abnormaluse.com/2016/02/revoluti ... ornia.html

I'm pretty sure the jury heard the same evidence and arguments that are presented in that post. But they also heard contrary evidence and arguments not set forth in the post. They, having heard everything, chose to believe the contrary evidence. Who am I to disagree with them?

Even the trial judge only reduced, rather than eliminating, the punitive damage award, so he must have concluded that plaintiff had introduced sufficient evidence to support the company's liability for punitive damages. --Bob