Sunday, June 27, 2021

Lawsuits That Actually Weren't as Frivolous as Reported

When news outlets try to distill a complex story into a short blurb or a 30-second news bite, the details often get distorted. It doesn't help that so many people only read the headlines. The 1994 lawsuit against McDonald's over hot coffee became the ultimate example of a frivolous lawsuit, but when you dig into the details, it is revealed to have been anything but frivolous. LegalEagle explains what really happened. The McDonald's case takes only the first six minutes; afterward there are other cases of "frivolous" lawsuits that were more substantial than they appeared at first glance. (via Digg)


xoxoxoBruce said...

I read a pretty detailed account of the McD coffee case. If she hadn't try to hold the cup between her knees while adding stuff she wouldn't have dumped the whole cup. If McD didn't heat the coffee to 180° they would get a steady stream of complains. Her lawyer testified in court that if the coffee was 160° she wouldn't have been burnt which is bullshit. 155° will cause 3rd degree burns in 1 second, As a matter of fact anything over 125° will cause 3rd degree burns in 10 seconds or less.

KingRoper said...

Bruce, a simple search shows that everything you said is incorrect. Do you work for McDonald's?

xoxoxoBruce said...

Oh what was wrong and where to you find it?
Here's one of many burn charts, they vary slightly by a second or a degree but all very close.

I doubt most people are aware of the damage hot liquids can do, but most people are smart enough not to try to hold a paper/styrofoam cup between their knees.

From here...
“the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.”
As you can see from the chart in the first link that is bullshit, 155 degrees is 1 second.
So KingRoper, put up or shut up. Nah, just kidding, don't shut up, I'm always interested in what everyone has to say.

KingRoper said...

Google for yourself, Ronald. I did, and your "facts" seem to come straight from McD's.

xoxoxoBruce said...

OK, you have no links, you can't back up your claims, just wild accusations and insults. Have a nice day.

gwdMaine said...

I've always found the McDonald's case to be
a mass-media misrepresentation of the facts.
Stella Liebeck was screwed over big time.
That no longer works. See Sandmann vs. CNN.

As far as hot coffee, maybe the reason
it's so bad is due to its high temperature
(just like Starbucks). And their BS excuse
about keeping coffee hot for a trip was

And if anyone wants a link, Wikipedia's
Liebeck v. McDonald's is a good place to start.