Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Prior to lawsuit that McDonalds in particular had been issued a warning about storing their coffee at to high of temperatures. Both from state inspectors as well as McDonalds corporate.

The caused 3rd degree burns and nerve damage. The victim didn't go to a lawyer immediately. She asked for the franchise to pay medical bills. They declined. She went to corporate with the evidence that they and the state said it was being stored beyond safe temperatures and asked for medical bill coverage. They declined. When she ran out of options she went to a lawyer and McDonalds ran a smear campaign against her as example of the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits. She had a legitimate complain and McDonalds shot themselves in the foot.

[–] • 0 pt

No, she asked them to pay medical bill plus the same amount again in unspecified "anticipated costs." Either way, I don't see why McDonalds should have to pay medical bills for her carelessness.

Expecting hot drinks to be "safe" to spill on yourself is retarded. As McDonalds pointed out in the lawsuit, any food above 130 F presents a scalding risk. Even if they had stored it at the temperature she demanded she still would have been burned (and probably still would have come running for money).

I do not agree she had a legitimate complaint and if I had been on that jury I wouldn't have given her a cent. Her "lack of options" was her own fault, not theirs.

[–] • 0 pt

Expecting hot drinks to be "safe" to spill on yourself is retarded.

Nobody expected drinks to be safe to spill, they expected that they be safe to drink. If they were safe to drink it just so happens that they'd be safe to spill.

Even if they had stored it at the temperature she demanded she still would have been burned (and probably still would have come running for money).

You and McDonald's are jewing the word "burned." Being burned by 130 degree water just hurts. That's the temperature my water heater is set at, and it will scald your hands. It will also stop hurting in a couple of minutes. Her burns were down to muscle and required skin grafts.

[–] • 0 pt

I can understand your point of view for sure. I think the only reason the case holds water in my opinion is the fact that this particular McD had been warned several times about unsafe storage temp. But I see where you are coming from.

[–] • 3 pts

Jews not withstanding the bulk of the settlement was punitive because MickyD had been a dick. It also really helped her case because there was a lot of evidence it had happened before.

People like to trot this case out as an example of frivolous lawsuits, and now as an example of Jew behavior apparently, but the truth is it's mostly just another case of a large corporation trying to get away with sandbagging the little guy, or old Jewess in this case.

[–] • 0 pt

Jews not withstanding the bulk of the settlement was punitive because MickyD had been a dick.

Only if you think they were responsible for a customer spilling something they made, not even in their restaurant. If you disagree with that then she was being a cunt.

It also really helped her case because there was a lot of evidence it had happened before.

They sell millions of dollars of coffee a week. There is no way to operate at that scale without that kind of thing happening a lot.

I bet Denny's has a few hundred claims result from people choking on their steak. Does that mean they should be required to serve only processed meat? Less people would choke if they were serving easily chewable burgers and sausages.

but the truth is it's mostly just another case of a large corporation trying to get away with sandbagging the little guy, or old Jewess in this case.

I disagree. I don't really care how big and mean McDonalds is, personal responsibility has to kick in sometime.

[–] • 2 pts

"personal responsibility has to kick in sometime." No argument there. Neither do I think that someone too stupid not to know better than to put a cup of hot coffee between her legs deserves $600K.

But I've looked into this case at length and it's very clear, to me at least, that McD's should have paid her initial demand for $17K and then changed how they served coffee. In fact they should have changed how they served coffee a long time before the incident took place, which is why the bulk of the settlement was punitive. If it had been the first time it had happened then McD's probably could have blown her off without worry. The "but they sell millions of dollars of coffee a week" defense was attempted but failed, presumably because at some point some becomes too much ie. if it wasn't this case then it was just a matter of time.

Don't think of it as a $600K reward for being a stupid person but as a $600K penalty for being an uncaring corporation.

[–] • 0 pt

That's a more reasonable argument, but stupid people are going to hurt themselves in stupid ways no matter what you do. They didn't specify what the other scalding cases were about, but I'm guessing they were instances where employees had spilled hot drinks on customers. In that instance it'd be perfectly reasonable to pay out.

Customers demanding compensation for spilling drinks in themselves, off premisis, with no influence from staff or the site whatsoever, is a massive escalation. If they started paying those kinds of claims it would mean they'd be responsible for anything anyone did with their food any time after it had been handed to them. It doesn't matter what size the business is or how evil they are, no one could afford to start taking on that kind of risk. So they drew the line and said no, it's your fault. There has to be a limit to caring.

[–] • 3 pts

Haven’t heard of this in a while but from what I remember wasn’t this actually a pretty legitimate case despite sounding frivolous? I heard the pictures of the burns on her legs were no joke.

[–] • 1 pt

It raises some interesting legal arguments, but tbh I fully agree with McDonalds: Not spilling food on yourself isn't the chef's responsibility. If you can't be trusted to do that and not blame others when it happens then you shouldn't be allowed to eat unsupervised.

[–] • 1 pt

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Stella Liebeck ordered coffee from McDonalds at a drive through with her grandson. They drove some distance away and parked, where she put the coffee between her legs to steady it while she opened it to put cream and sugar in, but instead she managed to dump the entire thing in her lap.

It's not mentioned in any article about her, but I suspect she delayed dealing with the problem because older people often don't feel heat or cold as intensely as younger people, so they don't always recognise when they're being burned. This causes scalding involving elders to often be much worse than with younger people who'll immediately run for cold water and treatment.

She initially demanded $20,000 from McDonalds to cover $10,000 in medical bills and the rest to cover "anticipated expenses" including her daughter being out of work (can't find an explanation for that one, was she a full time carer?). McDonalds said no and she lawyered up and demanded more and more money.

In court her lawyer argued that serving very hot coffee was unreasonably dangerous and McDonalds should be required to serve it at a cooler temperature. They also pointed out that McDonalds had had ~700 scalding cases and settled for up to $500,000 (presumably in different cases where they'd actually caused the scalding).

McDonalds argued that 700 cases is a lot in absolute terms, but not much compared to their overall volume of trade. They also argued that any food served over 130 F is a scalding risk and it's customers responsibility not to spill hot food/drink on themselves after it is given to them.

The jury decided the warning label on the cup wasn't big enough (I guess she wasn't supposed to know hot coffee is hot) and awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punative damages to punish McDonalds for refusing to pay up. These were later reduced to $160,000 and $480,000 respectively. Eventually they settled for $600,000 (presumably in exchange for not appealing).

[–] • 0 pt

What are you trying to say OP? That this case in particular somehow hurt White people?

Yes we’re at war with jews but not everything done by a jew is relevant to that.

[–] • 0 pt

Just that reacting to any problem with kvetching and lawsuits is a typical jewish trait.

But in a broader context this is a problem for whites: White people mostly work in high trust societies based on reasonableness and fair play. Jews work in low trust societies based on selfishness and pilpul. Pushing every accident into the courtroom and tying everything up in red tape and regulations (mostly overseen by jews) inherently favours them over us.

[–] • 0 pt

There are millions of genuine cases of out of control jury verdicts and trial lawyers abusing the system, but this case is not one of them.

[–] • 0 pt

No way LOL

[–] • 1 pt

I'm amazed she wasn't rubbing her hands.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I heard that her lid wasn't on tight or something like that.

[–] • 0 pt

Yep. Jew.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

They should remove all liability from any service or automotive industry. Wasn't really the server's fault you got the coffee split on you ma'am, you were just a sluttease. The automotive company isn't to blame if you're the idiot that decided to buy a car with defective parts.

[–] • 0 pt

They should remove all liability from any service or automotive industry.

Pure hyperbole. It's reasonable to expect hot water to be hot and to be handled with care. It's also reasonable to expect cars to be safe (when operated normally). Equally, it's also reasonable to expect to be injured if you mishandle hot water and it's reasonable to expect to be injured it you do stupid shit in cars.

Wasn't really the server's fault you got the coffee split on you ma'am, you were just a sluttease.

Server didn't spill it on her, she spilled it on herself. Look up the case.

The automotive company isn't to blame if you're the idiot that decided to buy a car with defective parts.

The coffee wasn't defective. Coffee is supposed to be hot.

[–] • 1 pt

Not BOILING hot, wtf?

[–] • 0 pt

Eh... I'm kinda tired of arguing it at this point.

I treat hot drinks with the assumption they're going to be scalding hot, and I treat them like boiling water until I'm sure they're cool enough to drink. If I spilled some on myself I'd consider myself responsible for that.

I just see so many of these lawsuits always trying to shift responsibility away from people's own actions and it bothers me.