I've heard this story many times, and the information provided at your link is nothing new to me.

The problem I have with this decision by the jury is that they didn't determine fault by "who did what to whom," but they were swayed by the extent of Stella Liebeck's injuries.

As callous as this may sound, I don't believe that should be a factor at all. Either Stella Liebeck's actions resulted in spilled coffee, or McDonald's' did. The magnitude of Liebeck's injuries does not suddenly shift responsibility of the spilled coffee onto McDonald's.

If she suffered only first-degree burns from the spilled coffee, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Even Liebeck herself would concede the fault was hers. She held a styrofoam cup between her knees and pulled the lid off. "Ouch, I spilled it! Hot! Hot! Hot! I shouldn't have been holding it like that."

And that would pretty much be the end of that.

But because she suffered third-degree burns, suddenly, it magically becomes McDonald's fault.

One effect of "the presumption of innocence" is that many many criminals walk free among us. Should we discard it, or do we consider it good policy overall, and worth the price?

Any piece of policy regarding torts will have effects at some part of the margin that can be used to undermine the policy. Focusing on other parts of the margin will lead to different conclusions. Which is why we should make policy based on dreary statistics rather than emotionally satisfying anecdotes.

No, wait! We can abolish bad luck! All we need to do is make Evil Corporations accountable for it!

Unlimited damages for torts (most of it going to the lawyers by the way) will make a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage look positively rational.

Patrick is absolutely correct in this. Being a sympathetic plaintiff should not shift fault onto the big evil corporation.

Lawsuits for damaged babies have just about driven Obstetricians out of many states. This is the real reason a lot of states have capped their tort damages. Without a cap, they could not get doctors to work in their states, because those doctors could not get reasonably priced insurance,

What doctor can afford to work in a state where they net 30k a year for an 80 hour week, after they pay their malpractice insurance?

This whole argument rests on the big fat fallacy that if there is a bad outcome, the doctor or the hospital must have done something wrong.

The jury, wrongly assumes that if the case did not have any merit, the judge would not have let the jury hear it. Wrong again.

I guess the tort lawyers wont be satisfied until women are giving birth on their own in the driveway of the emergency entrance so the doctor and the hospital can't be pegged with any liability for bad outcomes.

Obamacare didn't kill this jackpot, but socialized medicine surely will (and the bad outcomes will go up, as the quality of care goes drastically down)

I'm with Patrick. Why should the rest of us have to settle for lukewarm coffee from now on, just because an old woman couldn't handle the hot kind safely?

The jury here seems to have been prejudiced, not only by the sympathetic plaintiff but also by the fact that the defendant is a big corporation and therefore somehow evil. That's not rational thinking.

Liebeck and her lawyer should have been the ones who had to pay the punitive damages.

The magnitude of Liebeck's injuries does not suddenly shift responsibility of the spilled coffee onto McDonald's [...] But because she suffered third-degree burns, suddenly, it magically becomes McDonald's fault. ~ Posted by: Patrick at May 31, 2014 10:40 PM.

I'm with Patrick. Why should the rest of us have to settle for lukewarm coffee from now on, just because an old woman couldn't handle the hot kind safely? ~ Posted by: jdgalt at June 1, 2014 7:45 AM

Interesting.

The last time we debated this, Patrick was in at least partial agreement with the jury that Stella Liebeck's third-degree burns were evidence of negligence on McDonald's part:

Flynne writes: It's the lawyers' faults!! For taking on these frivilous lawsuits! Coffee too hot? Don't put it BETWEEN YOUR LEGS.

The screams of the ignorant are in full force, I see.

The coffee purchased by Stella Liebeck in the famous (and denounced by morons who decide to weigh in before they know the facts) incident that prompted the lawsuit in 1994, caused her to sustain third degree burns.

When was the last time you sustained third degree burns from spilling a cup of coffee? Liquids can cause third degree burns at 130 degrees or higher. McDonald's training manuals decree that the coffee is brewed from 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190?

Is there a reason for coffee to be served that hot? None of the other local businesses in that township seemed to think so, since no one else's coffee came within twenty degrees of McDonald's.

Also, as she spilled the coffee herself, the jury determined that she was 20% at fault. Which means her compensation was reduced from 200,000 dollars to 160,000. Punitive damages from the suit were 2.7 million by the jury, but the judge reduced them to 480,000.

In sum, it is not frivolous to sue a restaurant for serving a beverage that will cause third-degree burns in less than three seconds.

Posted by: Patrick at February 22, 2010 10:54 AM

Careful Conan, if you upset Patrick he may "ignore" you

Heaven's I think I have a stalker. Conan, you've just graduated to downright "creepy." This is the second time you've proven that you archive my posts. What on earth is wrong with you?

Heaven's I think I have a stalker. Conan, you've just graduated to downright "creepy." This is the second time you've proven that you archive my posts. What on earth is wrong with you?
Posted by: Patrick at June 1, 2014 10:09 PM

Anybody who knows how to use a google search engine on Amy's site, doesn't have to achieve anyone's posts.

You can find them easily.

I suspect Conan just has a good memory.

Me, I wouldn't bother going back that far, as Patrick often says two contradictory things in the same post.

Ad hominem much, Patrick?

As for me stalking you and archiving your posts, don't flatter yourself.

Let me introduce you to a little thing called the Internet, invented by Al Gore in the '80s.

On this thing called the Internet, one need simply go to a search engine (perhaps Google) and enter key words - like "Advice" "Goddess" "blog" "McDonald's" and "coffee" - and one can find the vaguely remembered rants of a self-proclaimed smarter-than-everyone-else poster who was adamant that McDonald's deserved to pay for Stella Liebeck's injuries and who hurled insults at any who disagreed with him, because of course, all who disagrees with him are "morons" and "ignorant."

Perhaps one day, Patrick, you can have a debate with someone without resorting to calling them names.

P.S., your tactic of spending an entire post letting people with whom you disagree know that you're ignoring them and then spending several subsequent posts reminding everyone that you're ignoring them isn't working as well as you think it is. [See luj's comment above.]

BTW, I know Al Gore never claimed he invented the Internet.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I agree, it's preposterous to claim that Gore said he "invented" the Internet. However, he has made statements in the past implying that the Internet would not exist without his leadership; Snopes quotes him as saying, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which is just about as pretentious. The Internet Protocols go back to work that was done in the late 1960s, well before Gore was in Congress, and in any event he was little-known outside of Tennessee prior to his first Presidential run in 1980. Yes, he was instrumental in passing the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991, but by then the ball was already rolling, and anyway, most of the heavy lifting in creating the commercial site of the Internet was done in the private sector.

My first contact with the Internet was in 1984, and it was already growing rapidly among the tech industry and academic sectors at that point -- and I don't ever recall hearing anyone mention Gore's name, except for when Garry Trudeau made fun of him in Doonesbury. Gore did have some function as a popularizer in the 1990s, but at that point he was much more of a bandwagoner than a leader. If it mattered to him all that much, he could have fought to direct more funding to ARPA when it was doing the work in the '70s and early '80s, but as far as I know he never did.

"commercial *side* of the Internet", sigh...

Actually, Cone-head, since apparently you're still smarting after being called out for your Hannity-esque cries of "class warfare," there is nothing contradictory about these posts. Too bad it's too nuanced for you or the rigor-mortis-brained Isab (who pretends to be a female lawyer on Amy's blog, though I'm convinced "she's" neither) to figure out.

When I had written the previous post, I had been discussing the issue with friends who had linked me to articles, which indicated that McDonald's coffee was being served at higher temperatures than everyone else's. Had that truly been the case, then I could see a problem. For what reason did McDonald's feel the need to serve at around 180 degrees while others contented themselves with 160 degrees? But in the aforementioned articles, McDonald's coffee was apparently being compared to local businesses and convenient stores, rather than national chains with drive-ups, such as Starbuck's (who, in fact, serves their coffee hotter than McDonald's).

Not knowing much about coffee or how it's served (since I don't drink the stuff and have no interest in it), that fact changed my perspective. If, in fact, McDonald's serving temperature is pretty much par for the course, then the average coffee drinker who frequents drive-up windows should realize this.

But to explain the part that apparently flew over your overtaxed head, my post in this thread is about consistency in assigning fault. If McDonald's was responsible for, for instance, a first degree burn (which requires no trip to the doctor) resulting from spilled coffee, then they're responsible for third degree burns resulting from spilled coffee.

The problem I had with this, as you'd have noticed if you even bothered to read the post instead of skim it, is the magnitude of Liebeck's injuries somehow magically shifted fault from herself (who did a dumb thing) to McDonald's.

Conan: Perhaps one day, Patrick, you can have a debate with someone without resorting to calling them names.

Perhaps one day, Conan, you can have a debate. Period.

Also, at the recommendation of a friend, I watched the movie, "Hot Coffee." She was convinced that the movie would convince me that McDonald's was at fault.

It didn't. In fact, as I watched it, I was especially put off by the jurors, many of which felt that they thought Stella Liebeck was at fault, until they saw the magnitude of her injuries.

I felt (and still feel) that there's something wrong with this logic. Either it's her fault the coffee spilled, or it isn't. The severity of her burns doesn't enter into this, only whose actions (or inactions) spilled the coffee.

Dear Patrick,

On behalf of luj, Flynne, Isab (the rigor-mortis-brained pretend female lawyer), and all the ignorant morons on this blog, I would like to thank you.

Thanks to your insults and name-calling, I see that none of us has the breadth and depth of your life experience.

None of us can comprehend the nuances in your ever-changing positions because we're "ignorant" and "morons" and still smarting from your stinging rebukes.

We can never know the facts of the case (any case) as well as you do. You're well-informed and we're "morons" and "ignorant." We skim instead of read. As a result, your points fly over our "overtaxed heads."

We shouldn't quote you or use your arguments against you because, even if we accurately quote your posts, because of your nuanced positions, we'll be misquoting you or putting words in your mouth (that last one seems to happen to you a lot).

We can only hope that once we learn to call people who disagree with us names or insult them and once we learn to deflect arguments by accusing our opponents of putting words in our mouths or misquoting us, we'll be judged by you to be worthy of having a debate.

Period.

Signed, Cone-head

========================================

The problem I had with this, as you'd have noticed if you even bothered to read the post instead of skim it, is the magnitude of Liebeck's injuries somehow magically shifted fault from herself (who did a dumb thing) to McDonald's. ~ Posted by: Patrick at June 3, 2014 1:52 AM

I felt (and still feel) that there's something wrong with this logic. Either it's her fault the coffee spilled, or it isn't. The severity of her burns doesn't enter into this, only whose actions (or inactions) spilled the coffee. ~ Posted by: Patrick at June 3, 2014 4:05 AM

You can spin it any way you want, but your 2010 posts attacked the temperature of McDonald's coffee, supporting the jury's decision to hold McDonald's mostly liable for Stella Liebeck's injuries due to the coffee being too hot.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/02/22/everything_and.html

I do think you've moved in the right direction, though, since then.

========================================

No one applauds that Ms. Liebeck was injured, severely or at all; and no one is dismissing her pain and suffering.

No one wants to blame an old lady for her own injuries. We want someone to be held responsible and her to be made whole.

However, in the final analysis, this was an accident with no one to blame.

We, as a society, have a hard time dealing with horrible occurrences when we don't have a villain to blame.

I'm sure a dozen little decisions were made by the Liebecks that day: to go through the drive-through instead of walking in, to balance the cup between her knees instead of setting it on the floor or holding it out the window, to pull the cup lid toward her rather than away when opening the cup, to have her open the cup instead of her grandson, etc. Changing any one of them might have changed the outcome of that day.

McDonald's could have been generous and paid her medical bills. She originally offered to settle for a small amount (one report says $10,000), but McDonald's management was tired of people suing them every time they burned themselves on what was obviously hot coffee. So they stood firm. Better they had stood firm on someone other than a 79-year-old woman with third-degree burns.

========================================

This case was a frivolous lawsuit and a misuse of the tort system - by the lawyer, Ms. Liebeck, and the jury.

The tort system was meant to punish and deter actual wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly being misused as a method of compensating the injured; and as a tool to redistribute wealth (all too often from parties perceived to be "deep pockets" who may be only tangentially related to the case at hand).

Actually, Cone-head is something I started calling you years ago, and it was meant to be a term of endearment, not an insult. But since you take it as an insult, I'll stop using it.

As for the rest of it, whatever. Evidently, in your perfect world, positions must always, always, always be adhered to, and no one is permitted to change their minds upon receiving new information.

Have a nice life, Conan.

Conan, who is no longer to be called Cone-head:

No one wants to blame an old lady for her own injuries.

I certainly do. I do if she's at fault. And some people wish to blame old ladies even when they're not at fault. I knew an elderly woman (for whom I was a caregiver) who was in a car accident in which she was not at fault. However, because this was late at night and the only other witnesses were the driver and his passenger, she was found at fault anyway.

We want someone to be held responsible and her to be made whole.

I'd settle for her being made whole. I don't need to point the finger at someone.

However, in the final analysis, this was an accident with no one to blame.

Says who? You? She was to blame.

We, as a society, have a hard time dealing with horrible occurrences when we don't have a villain to blame.

We manage earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters just fine. Those who wish to blame these occurrences on someone else -- for instance, God, venting His wrath over gay marriage, or the government has a secret weather-controlling machine -- are generally regarded as lunatics.

I certainly do. I do if she's at fault. And some people wish to blame old ladies even when they're not at fault. I knew an elderly woman (for whom I was a caregiver) who was in a car accident in which she was not at fault. However, because this was late at night and the only other witnesses were the driver and his passenger, she was found at fault anyway.

Care to explain who you knew?

I certainly do. I do if she's at fault. And some people wish to blame old ladies even when they're not at fault. I knew an elderly woman (for whom I was a caregiver) who was in a car accident in which she was not at fault. However, because this was late at night and the only other witnesses were the driver and his passenger, she was found at fault anyway.

Care to explain who you knew?

We manage earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters just fine. ~ Posted by: Patrick at June 4, 2014 11:37 AM

And yet they're still listed as "acts of God" on insurance forms - without lunatic speculation on what may have set God off. Just "acts of God."

==============================

The lunatics who say it was God's punishment aren't blaming God, they're blaming the objects of his supposed wrath for forcing his hand.

I guess the non-lunatics are content just to blame God.

==============================

"The explosion was now officially designated an 'Act of God.' But, thought Dirk, which god?"

~ Douglas Adams (The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul)