I thought only CA juries were that stupid. I guess Montana can join the ranks of regions with whacked out people.

 

different levels of "hot". she had to get skin grafts. read the wikipedia entry in its entirety before you judge.

 

There's a difference between "hot," like the cup of coffee I have beside me right now that's maybe 100 degrees and I could pour it over myself all day long without any injury at all, and "dangerously hot, enough to cause instant third degree burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts." I've spilled coffee from restaurants on my hand before and had no more issue than slightly red skin. The woman had every reason to expect the McD coffee wouldn't send her to the hospital, no matter what. You brew coffee at 180 degrees, you don't server it at that temp! And if you DO serve coffee at such dangerous temperatures, you better let them know about it - "Warning, this stuff will send you to the hospital if it contacts your skin for more than a few seconds."

Also, if you read the wikipedia article, you'll note that the woman wasn't alone - over ten years, McD got more than seven hundred reports of people being burned by their coffee. The woman didn't even get anything out of line from what previous burned people had gotten.

 

Well, honestly, that coffee was focking scorching. The lady was stupid and old yes, but the coffee was 180-190 degrees...that is piping hot. They also had plenty of other issues with people getting burned. Honestly, they should have designed safer cups because, lets face it, people are stupid and clumsy. McDonalds should have just paid her initial medical bill.

 

The OP sounds like pathetic case of a family trying to turn their tragedy into profit.

 

I never looked into the incident. Was never that interesting to me. I just heard what happened from friends and left it at that. Assuming is a dangerous thing.

My understanding was that the women was being unreasonable.
McDonalds did not have a warning hot coffee label.

Just looked at the Wiki. Interesting

She was being reasonable, Mcdonalds should have settled for her amount.
Cups did have warning labels on them.
Coffee was served unreasonably hot even though their customer preference studies indicated cooler coffee as the preference
Multiple law suits prior to this one and still no action taken

Makes sense why every time I order coffee from McDonalds they insist on putting the sugar and cream for me.

Thanks for the clarification

 

I too was ignorant of the McD's case and just did some research on it...I'm with the old lady with this one. Let me put this in perspective for you: the coffee was served at 190*...guess what the normal operating temp of the coolant in your S is?

When you think of it like that, its easier to understand why she won.

 

not sure where they got this fact... she definitely got less than a million.
When i first heard about this McD lawsuit i was led to believe that there was no warning. but dam. 190 degrees?! who could ever drink coffee at that temp

 

three letters: W T F

people have no sense

 

Can I sue if I get hit by a batted ball from a wooden bat? It would be hit harder than if someone hit it with a wiffleball bat...