On Dec 2, 1:49 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?
--
Jay Honeck


Here are the facts:

1. Pltf, age 79, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup.
2. She was passenger in the car; she placed the cp between her legs
to hold it whhile sh added cream and sugar.
3. As she removed the lid, the contents spilled on her legs.
4. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A surgeon determined that she suffered 3rd degree, full thickness,
skin burns over 6% of her body, specifically her inner thighs,
perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin area..
5. She was hospitalized for 8 days, undergoing skin grafting.
6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.
7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F.
8. They admitted that they had made no effort to study the safety
issues of this temperature.
9. Other establishments typically serve it around 135-140 F.
10. McD enforces its rule to hold the temp at 185 +/- 5 deg.
11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.
12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.
13. An expert on thermodynamics testified that liquids at 180 F would
cause full thickness skin burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
14. The evidence also established that as the temp increases over
155, the extent ofthe burn increases exponentially.
15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
16. The plaintiff had initially offered to settle for $20,000.00.
17. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but it was
reduced to $160,000 due to plaintiffs's own contributory negligence.
18. The jury ruled for $2.7 mmillion punitive damages, which equals 2
days' of McD's coffee sales.
19. The COurt reduced the pun dam tto $480,000, even though
characterizing McD's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts of
the case.
7.