quote:Originally posted by chriscubva
Oh course pretty much everyone by now has heard about the woman who sued McDonalds over hot coffee several years back but have you actually known someone who did more/less did the same thing as fiing a lawsuit over the most dumbest petty thing?
In reality, the elderly woman in question suffered
third degree burns on her genitalia and her legs as a result of McDonald's policy (at that time) of using water that was 20 degrees hotter than the usual temperature for drip coffee making. She was hospitalized for 8 days, received several skin grafts, and attempted only to be compensated for her medical expenses that were not covered by her medical insurance. When McDonald's offered her the grand sum of $800.00, that is when the suit ensued.
The process of discovery led to the disclosure that something like 700 people had previously received severe burns from McDonald's unexpectedly hot coffee, so there was no question that the company was aware of the hazards involved in using water this hot. Expert medical testimony proved that water of the temperature used by McDonald's will, indeed, cause severe burns when applied to the skin. (Imagine what it did to someone's mouth or esophagus if they drank it without adding milk!)
The ludicrous aspect of the case was the original settlement awarded by the jury (many millions of $$ as I recall), and this was drastically reduced, on appeal. The bottom line is that McDonald's was aware that using such unexpectedly hot water could cause injury, but they continued to use very high temperature water because it is possible to extract more flavor from a smaller quantity of coffee grounds if you use extremely high temperature water. Also, if the corporation had simply paid the woman's medical expenses, they could have avoided litigation.
The woman was found to be 20% liable for her injuries, which reduced her award accordingly. Even after the award was further reduced on appeal, the plaintiff still received an amount far above what would normally be expected for injuries of the type that she received--but she never sought an award of that magnitude.
Although it is very easy to criticize the woman from afar, I wonder how many of us would also file suit once it was found that the company in question was using unorthodox methods for the purpose of saving money and were aware of the hazards involved. How many of us under the same circumstances would say, "That's okay, I will shoulder all of the excess medical expenses myself". Yes, she did spill the coffee, but should the coffee have been hot enough to cause third degree burns?
Incidentally, subsequent to this suit, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their machines to the "standard", non-scalding temperature used by the rest of the food service industry. While this can not be used as evidence of guilt, it is interesting that they finally saw the light after that suit. Their coffee which is
now excellent as a result of using better-quality beans, is now brewed with "normal" temperature water, thus indicating that those very high water temperatures were never necessary in the first place, except to save money.
In case you think that I am a garden-variety corporation basher, I hold a fairly significant number of shares of stock in McDonald's. That, however, does not prevent me from seeing that the company's corporate greed led to this incident being blown out of proportion. If there was anything frivilous about the case, it was the original jury award, but that does not negate the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the woman who brought the suit.
