Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Woman sues Match.com for $10 million [View all]PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)182. You should spend some time learning about what you speak. You have fallen for GOP bullshit.
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=about
FAQ ABOUT THE McDONALDS COFFEE CASE
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandsons car having purchased a cup of McDonalds coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000. However, McDonalds refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonalds callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonalds revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonalds had engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonalds eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:
McDonalds Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonalds admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonalds coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonalds scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonalds employees;
McDonalds admitted at trial that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
McDonalds admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonalds then required temperature;
McDonalds admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
Liebecks treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonalds did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
Moreover, the Shriners Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonalds behavior callous. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
FAQ ABOUT THE McDONALDS COFFEE CASE
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandsons car having purchased a cup of McDonalds coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000. However, McDonalds refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonalds callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonalds revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonalds had engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonalds eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:
McDonalds Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonalds admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonalds coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonalds scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonalds employees;
McDonalds admitted at trial that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
McDonalds admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonalds then required temperature;
McDonalds admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
Liebecks treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonalds did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
Moreover, the Shriners Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonalds behavior callous. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
310 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
ok, I stand corrected on that point. She should have her day in court and not be fucking ridiculed
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#84
I'm a "little guy" business and I think frivolous lawsuits are frivolous regardless of how big
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#232
I disagree. If you meet the person through friends or family who have known him a long time,
pnwmom
Jan 2013
#225
Met my hubby on a dating site. Daughter also met her husband on another site. Most things
patricia92243
Jan 2013
#121
Exactly. Before I meet anyone in person I make sure there's a long electronic trail
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#235
I found out some time later one of these guys already had a significant other
Samantha
Jan 2013
#263
I'm sorry, but I really had to clean the coffee off the monitor after that one...
TreasonousBastard
Jan 2013
#162
I know several women who have been happily married for several years to the very normal,
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#233
The website I use has a very prominent disclaimer, IIRC, about safety in meeting people.
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#236
She should sue her educators and parents for not disclosing the dangers of stupidity. nt
OneTenthofOnePercent
Jan 2013
#20
What problem is this woman part of? The one that got her stabbed repeatedly and her skull crushed?
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#178
I think you and I don't have the details of the case and neither of us is qualified to
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#193
Relationship? The article makes it clear that they had known each other 8 days
HangOnKids
Jan 2013
#88
They shouldn't even have to pay THAT. And when we all have medical insurance,
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#237
Ask that one "Where are you getting the info that she told him where she lived?"
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#91
Well, I don't know about that. I went looking for some old school chums a year or so ago.
MADem
Jan 2013
#173
Match.com isn't a friend. It's a money making enterprise. As far as your claim about the woman,
pnwmom
Jan 2013
#226
I really would have thought the replies to this would have been something like
gollygee
Jan 2013
#23
That's cool how you know all of the details of this case. Nobody should ever go to court, just ask
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#114
I am not the plaintiff's attorney and I don't try to settle cases online, Frist.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#124
I said she should have her day in court. You claim to know she doesn't deserve it.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#131
“The basis of the lawsuit is the advertising that is utilized by Match.com lulling women ..
SpartanDem
Jan 2013
#133
It is the perps fault. It is no more match.com's fault than her internet provider.
alphafemale
Jan 2013
#192
That's cool how you know all of the details of this case. Nobody should ever go to court, just ask
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#59
She should have her day in court and not be fucking ridiculed by people who don't know shit about
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#48
She won't get 10 million-- that's just lawyer talk to file the suit...
TreasonousBastard
Jan 2013
#165
Agreed. A (thankfully very) few people enjoy victim blaming women for sport.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#45
I still see no claim anywhere other than here that she TOLD him where she lived.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#107
It is, but she will get a settlement large enough to pay her medical expenses
duffyduff
Jan 2013
#115
I'm quite capable of reading the posts on their own merit, thanks. This thread,
myrna minx
Jan 2013
#180
You should spend some time learning about what you speak. You have fallen for GOP bullshit.
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#182
Me, too. People are "Fristing" all over it. Who the FUCK do they think they are?
PeaceNikki
Jan 2013
#186
The libertarians have defiantly made it popular to shame and ridicule anyone who seeks
myrna minx
Jan 2013
#188
I add my voice to those pointing out that the coffee thing is RW propaganda
cthulu2016
Jan 2013
#231
I don't think that means what you think it means, but it's amusing nonetheless.
Sheldon Cooper
Jan 2013
#222
Match.com should clearly inform people: Our members include rapists, stalkers & murderers
limpyhobbler
Jan 2013
#205
LOL ok. But match.com makes a lot of money selling an image of safe dating. Needs a warning label.
limpyhobbler
Jan 2013
#210
I just watched 3 match.com ads on youtube and all of them showed safe environments with no warnings.
limpyhobbler
Jan 2013
#216
Maybe it seemed safe. People don't necessarily know what's safe on the internet.
limpyhobbler
Jan 2013
#297
If Republicans had their way, very few people would be able to have their day in court.
Nine
Jan 2013
#206
I had a dating website accidentally expose my email address (and my real name).
alarimer
Jan 2013
#213
You've had excellent and informative posts on this thread. Don't let the assholes get you down. nt
msanthrope
Jan 2013
#251
"there are folks with zero clue whatsoever about what it really takes to see someone in court."
snooper2
Jan 2013
#286
She should be free to bring her lawsuit. That doesn't mean every lawsuit should be taken seriously.
NYC Liberal
Jan 2013
#302