The
facts associated with legal cases often fall into the trap of people believing
third-party information including inaccurate reports on the media. For
instance, the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants case is among the most notable
lawsuits often termed as frivolous by various critics. However, it is crucial
to understand the specific details and facts before forming an opinion about
the case.
The
case dates back to 1992 when Stella Liebeck, who was 79 at the time, was
severely burned after spilling coffee on her lap. She had bought the coffee
from McDonald’s. From a superficial point of view, it would be easy for one to
question the validity of these lawsuits. For instance, one opinion would
suggest that it was Liebeck’s fault because she spilled the coffee while
another may contend that coffee is typically expected to be hot. These opinions
are mostly formed without careful consideration of the case’s actual
circumstances. In essence, the incident happened in a parked car where Liebeck
was a passenger and not the driver. In addition, the coffee was exceptionally
hot to a level likely to cause severe burns. This resulted in the victim
suffering third-degree burns and even required skin grafts. As such, it would
be credible to argue that this was a serious incident as opposed to notions
that it was a frivolous injury.
It
is also imperative to note that McDonald’s had previously received over 700
injury reports with some involving third-degree burns but failed to make
substantial rectification efforts. Liebeck initially wanted to settle for
$20,000 to help her cover medical expenses. However, McDonald’s was reluctant
to offer more than $800. Consequently, the jury awarded compensatory and
punitive damages amounting to $160,000 and $2.7 million respectively with the
case ending in a confidential settlement. Therefore, as opposed to ideas that
the case was frivolous, it is crucial to note that the facts of the case were
corroborated by expert witness testimony and McDonald’s eventual admission of
failure to warn customers about the risks in question.
Finally,
other cases get settled without a trial. A recent example is the Dominion
Voting Systems v. Fox News Network case. In the settlement, Fox paid about $800
million to Dominion Voting Systems in a move meant to avoid a trial. A trial
would have been detrimental to the news network’s reputation as it relates to
reports concerning the 2020 presidential election. The settlement seems significant,
but it also raises questions about broader consequences for organizations like
Fox News beyond payments meant to eliminate the possibility of trials.
Questions to think about:
What is the role of public perception in directing narratives associated
with legal cases? How does this impact settlements and the attainment of justice?
Do punitive damages
constitute effective remedies in cases like Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants?
Should alternative methods to address corporate negligence and public safety be
explored?
Sources:
Weiman, D., S. (2017, Jan 7). “The McDonalds' Coffee Case.” Huffpost
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362
Liebeck v. McDonald’s
Restaurants
Dominion Voting Systems
v. Fox News Network
We talked about this theme a little in last week's class weekend, per the OJ Simpson trial. The context was jurisdiction, different juries, and burdens of proof in criminal vs civil. The post raises great questions about the public perception of a case versus the actual facts. For example, in this specific case, I remember hearing about it, talking about it, and seeing the little signs on MacDonald's drive-through windows saying, "The coffee is HOT!". I remember thinking, man, I need to spill McDonald's coffee on me! I had no idea till now the severity of the burn. I didn't know till now she needed skin grafts, and now I can sympathize with her.
ReplyDeleteGiven that 99% of all civil cases are public record, the question is how much facts to the participants want the public to know?
The question you posed makes me think about a time when I was at a restaurant and the waitress dropped a pizza on my bare legs. It severely burnt me! Immediately a dollar sized blister developed on my leg. I still have a scar to this day. The group I was with all exclaimed that I should sue the restaurant, which I immediately blew off as ridiculous. However the fact that the group jumped in with that response does show a level of acceptance of these "frivolous" lawsuits. I think most people are familiar with the hot coffee/McDonalds suit and public perception is that if I have been hurt or even inconvenienced in an unexpected way, I could get a lot of money by bringing forth a lawsuit, like the "McDonald's lady". It is common to talk about our litigious society, and to me, this case is where it stems from.
ReplyDeleteThe punitive damages seem extreme to me. It gives public perception that it might be worthwhile to bring forth frivolous lawsuits. On the other side, McDonalds has learned a valuable lesson and now gives specific warnings (which I have always thought were silly, but understandable after this suit). They have taken precautions and many other corporations have followed suit in trying to preemptively save themselves from this type of lawsuit by giving proper warning and labeling. I think there are several ways that corporations are checked for negligence and public safety, but perhaps there could be more done.
I remember this lawsuit and the narrative around it was definitely negative towards the woman that brought the lawsuit, thinking it was frivolous because everyone knows coffee is hot (duh!). However, knowing the actual facts of the case lead to a very different conclusion. I wonder how many people hear about these types of cases but I imagine a large majority never actually read any of the details or bother to look further in to them. I know I certainly never did, until now! I'm actually quite surprised that McDonald's didn't settle that case (or maybe they tried and the Plaintiff refused).
ReplyDeleteThere's a current lawsuit that is playing to the perception of media as well. A woman is suing Disney for $50,000 for what the news has reported as an " extreme wedgie from going down a water slide" My first thought when I saw this was to laugh, until I read the report. She suffered severe vaginal lacerations and damages to her internal organs which caused her bowels to protrude. Seems that her damages are worth more than $50,000 to me.
ReplyDeleteUnless we serve on the jury for these types of cases, the media will report that she spilled coffee on herself (we've all done that) or that she got a wedgie going down a waterslide (again, we've all had that happen). But unless we are there to see the exhibits and can fully understand the entire scope of the damages, all we see if an over-simplification of the problem and the awarded amount.
One problem with the public's collective perception is that many frivolous lawsuits are filed. I have read some really wild complaints that named companies I have worked for, along with other large companies in the area, news anchors, the predominant church, etc., as defendants to some outlandish claims. That is one potential con of a system that isn't designed (generally) as "loser pays." The justice gap would grow even wider than it already is if our system were set up differently.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, I know I could benefit from withholding judgment on certain issues until I am presented with more facts and evidence.
As a former comic book nerd, I remember first learning about this in an issue of Too Much Coffee Man. I believe the case was represented as frivolous. My older brother was quick to inform me that the coffee was at an extremely high temp for food consumption.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I could find, it was 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Various sources say that poultry should be cooked to an internal temp of 165F. A reasonable person should expect coffee to be hot. A reasonable person should not expect coffee to be that hot. After a certain amount of time and amount of coffee left in the pot, I turn my coffee maker off. Coffee does burn and end up tasting bad.
Was McDonald experimenting with a McChicken cooked in coffee? There's cardboard coffee cup sleeves, and then there's oven mittens. Coffee shouldn't be oven mitten hot. I'm picturing The Simpsons opening credits. Instead of a piece of plutonium or whatever nuclear thing Homer holds, it's McDonald's coffee.
I think about all the taxpayer money spent on rescuing people who do not pay attention to signs, brochures, videos, or others.
Growing up I was warned about most of the dangers in Hawaii. One saying that I keep in my mind wherever I go that has a body of water is, "Never turn your back on the ocean."
Mother Nature, especially the ocean, is unpredictable and unforgiving.
From what I remember about the 2004 blowhole incident is that the individual walked pass a warning sign, went over a fence, and ignored multiple people telling and yelling at him. The situation was sad but, the lawsuit should not have happened.
The last time I was on Maui, I heard lifeguards yelling at tourists. Lifeguards used their bullhorn to call tourists "dummies". That was after multiple instructions and warnings, and after, the tourist got hurt from the waves.
How many signs are needed at each cliff? How high should a cliff be before it needs a sign? Where does the personal accountability begin?
When I was in Mexico City, I had to pay attention. Holes in the middle of the sidewalk. There were no caution tape, cones, signs, etc. I'm not familiar with their legal system. I don't think they tolerate frivolous suits or suits from situations where the individual should have paid attention.
Too many people out there that make me fear AI will have no problem taking over everything.
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/1819257/city-settles-blowhole-death-lawsuit/
Nice job, Naomi! It's very true that our impressions are often guided by how the media portrays cases, as well as gossip. I remember the McDonald's case. I remember hearing many people joke about it as though it was frivolous. It wasn't until my daughter was learning about the importance of finding truth in her middle school class. She shared some of the facts you noted here, about the medical needs and skin grafting for the victim. Knowing that the settlement helped her will medical needs changed my perspective. It's good to question what we hear and to pay attention to several angles of the stories that are presented to us. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the classic McDonalds coffee case. Not only a great lesson in lawsuits and litigation but in social morality. I had no idea there were so many previous complaints about the burns prior to this case. Settling is a valuable tool in litigation... or out of litigation and we should all be grateful it is an option.
ReplyDelete