This was not simply a case of a careless customer. Although this case has
been used since as an example of how people refuse to take responsibility
for their actions and how unfair the courts are to businesses, that does
not seem to reflect the reality.


" Here are the pertinent facts:

   - Stella was in the passenger seat
   - The car was parked
   - Stella held the coffee between her knees to open the lid, the coffee
   spilled
   - Stella suffered 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts
   - The coffee at that McDonald's location brewed coffee at 193 degrees F,
   3 degrees hotter than McDonald's prescribed range of 180-190
   - The McDonald's range was 30 degrees F hotter than what home coffee
   makers brew at and 10-20 degrees hotter than the optimum temperature for
   extraction
   - Liquid at 180 degrees F will cause 3rd degree burns to human tissue
   with less than 1 second of exposure
   - McDonalds had received thousands of complaints about the temperature
   of their coffee resulting in burns, to which they took no action
   - Liability for the burns was split between McDonalds and Stella 80:20%
   - Only 200K before contributory negligence (before reducing by the 20%
   Stella was responsible) were compensatory damages (pain & suffering,
   medical bills, out of pocket expenses, etc.) the remainder was punitive
   damages meant to give incentive to McDonalds to reduce the temperature of
   their coffee
   - The judge reduced the total award to $650,000
   - McDonalds appealed and negotiated a settlement below $500,000


This is not a simple case of a woman being careless and getting a minor
burn because she spilled a little coffee on her, nor is it a case where
someone received a huge amount of money based on a frivolous law suit.

Given this set of facts in that jurisdiction I am shocked that McDonalds
did not settle the claim out of court, as they could have probably done so
for $150-$200K and avoided the punitive damages.  Ultimately, the
compensatory damages were pretty reasonable, the trier of fact assessed an
appropriate level of contributory negligence, and while the punitives were
quite high; however, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to when
the judge stepped in to give a more reasonable punitive award.- Michael
Wulfe, Quora"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:368050
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to