re: McDonald’s Found Liable for Hot Chicken McNugget that Burned Girl

I'm very conservative and very against frivolous lawsuits, but the hot coffee incident (which was abt 30 years ago, btw) is a totally different scenario from this and it is obvious most of you guys don't know the details of that story and only got the 30k foot media view.

The plaintiff was an older woman on a fixed income who went through the drive thru for coffee. She took the cup from the employee, who thought she had control of it, and it spilled all over her lap causing severe burns to her nether regions. She went to the ER then proceeded to get the ER bills abt a month later. She went back to the manager of that specific McDonald's and asked if they would be willing to help her catch those bills up. They basically told her to shove it up her arse. She went to the franchisee and asked again and was basically told the same thing. So at that point, she went to a lawyer. Lawyer goes back to the franchisee with same request. Again, "eat shite" more or less.

At that point lawyer decided that was enough and went after corporate. For a lot more than the medical bills.

Yep!

quote:

---

their coffee was vastly hotter than others/what it needed to be as well.

---

Believe it or not...
There is not a temperature gauge on the old coffee makers.

I've read comments today about the 190 degree coffee.
The high temperature is a result of the coffee machine (every coffee machine with a hot plate is the same).
It isn't a "mcdonalds did this on purpose" type of scenario.

quote:

---

The plaintiff was an older woman

---

Yes, she was in her 70s, and received third degree burns and went into shock. And she was wearing sweat pants, so that coffee must’ve been hot.

I’d have more sympathy for this case with the nugget if the mom wouldn’t have acted like an attention whore

quote:

---

She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her nephew parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13]

Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[16][17]

---

quote:

---

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),[2] a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000[3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,000,000 in 2021) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.[4]

The Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. It was cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation;[5] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[6] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".

---

From the wiki LINK

quote:

---

Chicken McNuggets are not supposed to be pressed between a seat belt and human flesh.

---

oh so I’ve been doing it wrong all these years

Cold nuggets for everyone from now on.

They serve them cold and get returns which costs them profits
They serve them hot and get sued by a shitty parent which costs them profits
How the hell does any business deal with this environment