Having flown the kite for the corporate defendant in another thread, let me try to sketch out a rebuttal of this argument.
Does the moving or non-moving state of the coffee matter with regards to her clumsiness? Wow, so it's "I was clumsy and spilled it" or "I was too cheap to get a cup holder for my car" or "I was too dumb to use my cup holder properly". Or else it was an accident. What does McDonald's have to do with it?
Well, I've been clumsy and spilled some hot cocoa on myself before. I take full responsibility for my actions, and blame nobody else. It was a nice, hot cup, too. It didn't, however, give me third degree burns through clothing.
...everything that happened to this woman was entirely her own fault.
"Everything" breaks down, in this instance, to two things: 1) that she spilled the coffee; 2) that the coffee was hotter than expected. So I (and, apparently, the courts) agree with you on
#1. But I don't agree with you on #2.
Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.--What this has to do with McDonald's, I have no idea.
It means that a person should be able to presume a product will conform to reasonable expectations set up by common practice. If I made a car that accelerated to 70 mph with a tap of the gas pedal, but didn't begin deceleration unless you put 25 pounds of pressure on the brake, then (assuming I could even get such a car made) it's my responsibility to point out to you, the consumer, that you're getting something different from what you might expect when you think of the word "car."
Just because a LOT of idiots make one type of frivolous claim, doesn't lend that type of frivolous claim any added significance.
Well, let me rewrite this a little: I'm going to remove the biased term "frivolous", and change the emotionally-laden term "idiots" to "people". Then we get:
"Just because a LOT of people make one type of claim, doesn't lend that type of claim any added significance."
--Well, yes, it does. It provides evidence for the claim that McDonald's knew their product was harming people.
Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
Well... yeah. I'd refuse to give her a damn dime too. (snip)...if she'd not been a bitch about it, I might have decided to be generous and help out.
Asking for a settlement isn't suing, and I don't know how expensive debridement treatment is, but I suspect $20,000 is in the ballpark. So I don't know how that qualifies her as "being a bitch."
If they wanted to sell coffee heated into plasma in magnetic bottles, then they can sell that.
Not without labeling it as such.
From what the previous poster said, this looks like McDonald's consistently sold a product that they knew could harm their customers, and the woman asked that they pay her medical bill. McDonald's could have payed a spit-in-the-ocean sum (for them) and turned their burners down, but they didn't. So the judge (or jury) decided to hit them with punitive costs. Not exactly a travesty of justice from this angle.
"Hardly used" will not fetch a better price for your brain.
[ Parent ]