Frivolous?

This is a post from my old blog.

I read a recent criticism of the McDonald's coffee verdict. This seems very timely, considering the incident happened in 1992, and the trial in 1994. I would be interested to hear the author's view on The Arsenio Hall Show and Beverly Hills 90210 as well.

But my real concern is the lack of any knowledge as to why this suit happened. I am not claiming that it was the greatest lawsuit ever, but it was over a lot more than "hot coffee."

Stella Liebeck was 79 years old on February 27, 1992. She was riding as a passenger, with her grandson. He pulled the car from the drive-thru window and stopped so she could add cream and sugar. She tried to open the lid, and the coffee spilled.

The coffee was approximately 190 degrees, or 22 degrees from being boiling water. It was kept that hot so that it would taste good. By comparison, coffee at home is often SIXTY DEGREES COOLER. At that temperature, she was burned within two to seven seconds, and the cotton sweatpants she wore held the water close to her body.

Stella suffered third-degree burns over six percent of her body, including her inner thighs, and burns of some kind over an additional sixteen percent of her body. She required skin grafts, and spent eight days in the hospital, and was in physical therapy for two years.

Stella asked for $20,000 to settle this case, which essentially covered her medical bills and attorney's fees. McDonald's refused.

During trial, McDonald's claimed that people buy their coffee not intending to drink it in the car, but to take it to work or home, thus allowing it time to cool. We all know that's a bald-faced lie, but what were they going to say? We choose to serve our coffee so hot it can cause a third-degree burn within less than five seconds? The trial brought to light that there had been more than 700 complaints and serious burns over the previous ten years.

By contrast, an expert testified that if the coffee had been served at 155 degrees, it would have cooled before causing serious burns.

The jury found compensatory damages to Stella at $200,000, then reduced the amount by twenty percent because it found her to be twenty percent at fault. The jury then found $2.7 million against McDonald's for punitive damages. The judge reduced that amount to $480,000 within days of the trial. The $2.7 million? The jury calculated that was two days of coffee sales for McDonald's.

Now, I don't know how the author feels about third-degree burns to grandmas, but I'm on record as being against them. I'm not saying that this case was Brown v. the Board of Education, but it was a serious case against a company that really didn't care.

In addition, the lawsuit caused the industry to make other changes:

- Safer coffee lid and cup designs that make it far harder to spill an entire cup of coffee.
- Cups made out of more thermal materials. While Styrofoam and thermal foam keeps the coffee inside hotter for longer, it also insulates your fingers from the hot liquid inside.
- Cup sleeves as common practice.
- A new policy that holds true at nearly all fast food drive thrus – the server must cream and sugar your coffee if you request it. In fact, most restaurants no longer serve takeout coffee black with cream and sugar on the side.

But the fact that the author had to go back fifteen years to find something to complain about goes to show that our system really isn't that bad. Judges throw out meritless cases every day.

How about no more frivolous columns about lawsuits?