Actually, Miss Pauly, Stella Liebeck did have a legitimate claim against McDonald’s. The coffee was heated to 180 degrees Fahrenheit. 120 degrees is enough to scald you. McDonald’s heated their coffee to a level that was totally unsafe and could cause severe second-degree burns. Any gynecologist would tell you about the added danger to female genitalia that any 180-degree liquid will do.

And putting the coffee between her legs was her fault. Being responsible for your decisions is key to making the world a better place. We can all thank Stella for showing us how ignorant some people can be. It isn’t McDonalds fault she put the coffee between her legs, nor is it her fault that it spilled into her lap. So the coffee was hot? I thought coffee was supposed to be hot? You don’t need a label saying “hot” to let someone know that coffee is overly hot. Her ignorance and greed, coupled with shaky laws led to an extremely questionable verdict.

Great article. A 79 year old woman had coffee many times and knows that one can be burned. I do not know a coffee drinker who has never not had coffee spill. Fortunately, in most cases the burns are not severe.

She made a stupid decision and put a breakable cup between her legs. A hot cup of coffee does not belong there. She is to blame.

Michael Jackson is like your local discount store - they both have little boys pants half-off.

“Actually, Miss Pauly, Stella Liebeck did have a legitimate claim against McDonald’s.”

And apparently you have a legitimate claim against your parents for making you stupid.

Actually, Stella Liebeck did have a claim. While putting the coffee between her legs was stupid, she had a claim because several other people had brought complaints against McDonalds after spilling their coffee and getting severe burns. Everyone expects to get burnt if they spill coffee on themselves. McDonald’s heated their coffee well beyond normal without a warning label. Essentially, they harmed others and intended on doing nothing to prevent that harm in the future. It’s the exact same thing as the federal case against tobacco right now, except replace the words fraud or corruption with negligence.

There are a lot of unwarranted cases, especially of the personal injury and class action kind. But if you have any lawyer go over the McDonald’s case they’ll tell you McDonald’s should have lost.

It is not true that any lawyer would say that mcdonalds should have lost. Not even every plaintiff’s attorney would say that.

I’m a lawyer, although not a plaintiff’s attorney. McDonald’s should have won because the plaintiff was more at fault than anyone else. Moreover, the case has ruined McDonald’s once excellent coffee.

Also, the tobacco companies should be undefeated as it is obviously the fault of smokers that they suffer the negative effects of smoking. Seriously, how can you smoke and not see the giant warnings on every pack, or the omnipresent “The Truth” ads?

Lousy nanny state.

I didn’t say just ask a lawyer. Ask them to actually review the case first. Not just what they remember from the news. And who is “more at fault” isn’t of legal consequence. Look, strollers have a warning label on them that say, “Remove child before folding.” We’d all agree that it would be the parent’s fault if he or she folded their own baby up in a stroller. As far as liability issues go, though, it is a completely different story. And yes, it is ridiculous that they need to put that warning label on.

Oh, and the tobacco companies will win the federal case. The federal case is trying to get them on RICO, and the federal government will never be able to prove that a) the tobacco companies purposely defrauded customers and b) that they intend to do so in the future.

Not even all the lawyers that reviewed the case would agree with you. And you know that, so quit trying to get around the fact that you knowingly made a false statement.

I think I might sue you for misrepresentation of the opinions of attorneys as a group.

“more at fault” can be of legal consequence, and is certainly taken into account by juries, and probably judges too, even though they won’t admit it.

that misrepresentation of attorneys lawsuit would be a good class action suit.

Ok, I’ll admit that the lawyers that represented McDonald’s in that case wouldn’t agree with me. Or any lawyer that is currently representing McDonald’s. Other than that, even with lawyers who represent companies with similar types of liability problems, when they look over the case they say, “McDonald’s should have lost.”

Let’s have a “beat the crap out of a lawyer” day. Do you know why roller rinks disappeared? Lawsuits. It’s true.

OK. I’ll just declare it. Get your bats out. Friday is beat a tort lawyer day.

“And apparently you have a legitimate claim against your parents for making you stupid.”

Whoever posted this: Stop! Don’t give anybody any bad ideas! Do you want parents to wind up in court defending themselves from their own kids while they’re already paying their way through college?

“Do you want parents to wind up in court defending themselves from their own kids while they’re already paying their way through college?”

Any kid who would sue their parents over the stupid sorts of issues described here has a good case — they’re probably too stupid to get through college in the first place.

“remember Stella Liebeck; she was awarded $2.9 million for spilling hot coffee from McDonald's on herself”

How about this? Do you “remember” that before she filed suit she was willing to settle for her medical bills? McDonalds refused.

Do you “remember” that after suit was filed, the plaintiff was willing to settle for $90k? McDonalds refused.

Do you “remember” that after the jury delievered their $2.9 million verdict the JUDGE reduced it to ~$500k?

Do you “remember” that the FDA repeatedly told McDonalds’ coffee was too hot? And, do you “remember” that the coffee burned Stella so bad as to require numerous surgeries?

So, do you remember this? Of course not, you had no idea because of the sophomoric reporting on these issues.

So what if mcdonald’s wouldn’t settle. They don’t want word to get out about paying for medical bills, because then every idiot who dumps coffee on their lap will demand payments and it will cost millions to take care of.

There is also the issue of who is at fault. Obviously there is plenty of blame to go around, but from Mcdonald’s point of view, why should they have to pay medical bills of someone who spilled coffee on herself that she knew was hot.

is friday still beat a tort liar, I mean lawyer day?

“How about this? Do you “remember” that before she filed suit she was willing to settle for her medical bills? McDonalds refused.” Whether she was willing to settle for med bills or 90k isn’t the point, the point is that it was her fault she spilled the coffee, not mcdonald’s, therefore mcd’s shouldn’t have to spend a dime. as the poster above said if they did all would be clamoring for some money.

The point is that 12 people believed after a trial that McDonalds was at fault in the amount of $2.9 million. In that light, it is vindicating, and insightful that the woman merely wanted her medical bills taken care of.

“it is vindicating, and insightful that the woman merely wanted her medical bills taken care of.” wanting her medical bills taken care of doesn’t shift responsibility. and if this is true than why didn’t the claim stop w/ medical and court bills, instead of 2.9million?

Because she was out looking for an easy buck. To blame anyone else for spilling coffee on yourself, ridiculus. Is it my computers fault if I spill water on it? Should I sue newegg.com because the parts in the computer no longer work because I spilled water on it? It doesn’t say anywhere on the parts that “water will cause severe damage”.

But your computer does have, most likely, have a warranty. If not a warranty, it probably has some legal agreement you “signed” as a part of purchasing it, qnd as a part of that warranty, if you do something to mess up your computer your computer company is not liable. A McDonald’s cup of coffee has no such agreement.

I believe tort reform is a good thing, but most of you who think McDonald’s was right are all saying the same thing. “The woman was dumb, she got what she deserved.” Just because someone commits an act that is grossly stupid does not mean that, legally, someone else who enabled that idiotic situation is, legally, free of blame.

There are a host of points I would like to make. For the sake of brevity, I will leave you with this.

I pointed out what the plaintiff was willing to settle for and what she actually got to highlight that this was not some scam where a money-grubbing old lady stuck it to a big money corporation.

But other people pointed out their point of view: she made a mistake and had no right to tell someone else to pay for it.

“But other people pointed out their point of view: she made a mistake and had no right to tell someone else to pay for it.”

But as far as the legal system is concerned, you’re wrong. And even with the tort reforms that are currently being enacted, this case would still be heard under the same circumstances.