![]() ![]() The critics of civil justice very often press charges that either Stella was driving the car or that the car was in motion when the coffee was spilled, neither of which is actually true. While doing so, the entire coffee spilled on her lap and within a matter of ninety seconds spread to her groin and her inner thighs, and the sweatpants which she was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it close to her skin, causing third-degree burns on nearly sixteen percent of her skin. ![]() Stella placed the coffee between her knees with the purpose of opening the lid and adding cream and sugar to it. The coffee was served in a Styrofoam cup with a warning on the lid indicating that the contents of the cup were ‘H.O.T.’ in small uppercase letters. Stella Liebeck, a resident of Albuquerque in New Mexico, was seated in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, ordered a cup of coffee from the drive-through window of the local McDonald’s restaurant. One cannot, however, ignore the third-degree burns that Stella had incurred across her groin, inner thighs, and even her buttocks. What is very surprising, though, is the fact that the testimony and actions of McDonald’s’ very own staff proved instrumental in leading the jury to rule against it and subsequently in favor of the opponent. They reduced her compensatory damages award by $40,000 to reflect that finding.The case has illuminated the severely inadequate justice system with everything wrong prevalent in it, ranging from ‘frivolous lawsuits,’ immoral lawyers, untrustworthy judges, to insatiable petitioners who conveniently put their own blame on others and are aided by clever judges to support the entire foul practice.Įven after a gap of nearly ten years, civil justice and jury critics still ridicule the ‘Stella Lieback and McDonald’s case of coffee by terming it as ridiculous and frivolous! While the jurors had awarded damages to Liebeck, they had found her to be partially responsible for the accident. Coffee brewed at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. The lawsuit contended Liebeck’s coffee was 165 to 170 degrees when it spilled. Testimony at trial indicated McDonald’s coffee is standardized at 180 to 190 degrees. Morgan argued that McDonald’s was returning to the court as a ″big industry saying, ’Leave us alone, ignore what this jury. ![]() Hall also argued the plaintiffs had not been able to establish what would be a safe temperature for coffee. He said ordinary people appreciate that coffee ordered from a restaurant is hot and that if it is mishandled it can burn someone. Hall argued at today’s hearing that the plaintiffs did not prove that hot coffee is a defective product, and were therefore not entitled to damages. Liebeck, who was in court today, declined to comment. Liebeck’s attorney, Reed Morgan, said he was surprised by the ruling, but had no other comment except to say he would appeal the reduction in damages. McDonald’s attorney Bruce Hall said he would appeal today’s ruling, saying the jury’s verdict was unjust. He said $480,000 was appropriate for the ″willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous″ behavior on the part of McDonald’s. The judge said he arrived at $480,000 figure for punitive damages by tripling the $160,000 compensatory award given Liebeck. Scott noted he had told jurors that any punitive damages must be ″reasonably related to the injury.″ Compensatory damages cover a person’s actual losses, while punitive damages are meant to punish and deter wrongdoing. Scott let stand the compensatory damages but cut the $2.7 million punitive award to $480,000. 27, 1992, when she placed a cup of coffee between her legs to steady it while prying the lid off at a McDonald’s driveup window. She suffered third-degree burns on her legs, groin and buttocks in Feb. Last month, a jury awarded nearly $2.9 million in punitive and compensatory damages to Stella Liebeck, 81. for an elderly woman who was scalded by hot coffee she spilled on her lap.Īt the same time, State District Judge Robert Scott denied a motion by attorneys for McDonald’s asking him to grant a new trial or, at least, throw out the punitive damages altogether. (AP) _ A judge today sharply reduced a $2.7 million punitive damage award against McDonald’s Corp. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |