![There was a discussion yesterday about the woman who sued McDonalds because their coffee was too hot. I was suspicious of her name and decided to look her up. She is rather (((tribal))) looking [460x276 - 25KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/elAJcK.jpg){kind=link}
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.
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.
"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.
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.
(post is archived)