Brit3964

Does anybody remember this?

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the “McDonald's coffee case,” is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation; ABC News calls the case “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck

And of course that other oh-so important major legal case not long ago:

The $67 Million Pants
Washington, D.C., Lawyer Sues Dry Cleaners for Lost Trousers

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3119381

Maybe they should stamp a warning on all clothing given in good faith to a drycleaners "Beware, this garment may not be a) the same size after washed, b) may not be the same color and c) may not even be here at all.

Andy in FLA

I saw an amusing huge bill board in the centre of Orlando today advertising whocanIsue.com , they'll sue for anything over here , I better stop there I may be sued.

another bloody yank

Remember it? It changed the way I think.

Michael

The lawsuits that I dislike the most are the class action coupon settlement lawsuits. This is where a law firm files a class action lawsuit and collects millions of dollars in fees and the consumer gets a coupon with little or no value. Coupon settlements used to be rare until the courts allowed law firms to have members of the class action lawsuit to opt-out instead of opt-in. The following are just a couple of those suits.

In one such case in the early 1990s, consumers sued the airline industry for price-fixing claims arising from the industry's use of a computerized ticket price clearinghouse jointly owned by the airlines. While the claims apparently were of questionable merit, the settlement provided the class members a total of $408 million in discount airline ticket coupons and more than $50 million in attorneys' fees and administrative costs. The discount coupons were heavily restricted, as they were subject to black-out dates, could not be combined or used with other discounts, and were good only for up to ten percent off a flight. Critics charged that the settlement was primarily "a promotional scheme to induce travelers to fly" during off-peak travel periods and "a deal" worked out so class counsel could reap their fees, calculated at between $500 and $1,400 an hour.

For many plaintiffs' lawyers, this indeed is clientless law. As class action lawyer Bill Lerach candidly admitted: "I have the greatest practice of law in the world ... I have no clients." Certainly many of the lawsuits go unnoticed by the plaintiffs, as "[o]ften, [plaintiffs'] lawyers appoint themselves to represent a class of people, many of whom don't even know they are part of a lawsuit." Pinellas County, Florida Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird wrote of one action that it "appears to be the class litigation equivalent of the 'squeegee boys' who used to frequent major urban intersections and who would run up to a stopped car, splash soapy water on its perfectly clean windshield and expect payment for the uninvited service of wiping it off."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n15640312

Ford had failed to disclose the fact that Explorers had a high center of gravity, making them prone to roll over and therefore unsuitable as family vehicles. Every single owner was allegedly damaged by the difference between the value of the vehicle if it was as advertised, and its true value (an amount estimated at $1,000 per vehicle). The plaintiffs got a multi-state class certified, and trial was underway earlier this year.

Then, not long after the plaintiffs rested, the parties announced a settlement without announcing the details. Now we have the details, and guess what? It's a coupon settlement -- the bane of class litigation. Each member of the class gets a coupon worth up to $500 toward a new Explorer or other Ford -- transferable only between family members and expiring after a year -- in this purported "$25 million settlement." Oh, and the attorneys' fees? "Up to" another $25 million.

http://www.calbizlit.com/cal_biz_lit...-settleme.html

tonrob

:curse: Bastards!

Xebedee

Don't know if you are aware of this difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Rule

Sort of explains a bit doesn't it?

Brit3964

Not to mention Ford's ongoing problem with some of their cars, SUVs and trucks catching fire, spark plug blow outs or plastic intake manifold gaskets:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford.htm

Truely awful. Why anybody would even contemplate buying a Ford now is beyond me.

Michael

I think Ford mostly has a perception problem and isn't quite as reliable as the better Japanese cars but rank comparably to European cars. In the JD Powers Dependability study, the only European cars that were more dependable were BMW and Jaguar where as Audi, Mercedes, Mini, Prosche, and Volvo were as reliable and Land Rover, SAAB, and Volkswagon were less reliable.

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings...tings-by-brand

In the area of JD Powers quality survey, only Mercedes and Porsche ranked higher but Land Rover, Mini, and SAAB ranked lower than Ford.

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings...tings-by-brand

Seldom does US or European cars rank as consistently well in both dependability and quality as the Japanese brands such as Toyota, Lexus, and, Infinity. In other words, both US and European cars are overall fairly average in relation to the better Japanese brands (Toyota, Lexus, Infinity, Honda, and Acura). I remember when Renault, Fiat, Triumph, and Yugo was sold in the states and those were of very poor quality and reliability.

cindyabs

and my Corolla will be paid off in February,

I loved my Volvo but when things started going on it when it was 8 years old I couldn't afford to replace them,

MsElui

Ironically - if you actually go into the detail on this one - it was actually a not as frivolous as it is made out to be.

'had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.' During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's.

I think if anyone even put coffee that hot to their lips they would live to regret it with nasty burns. Yes she put it in her lap (between her knees) whilst she tried to get the lid off to add creamer but regular coffee should not do the kind of damage she sustained. I think that had I been in her position I would have sued for my medical expenses too - and I cant imagine many things I would sue for.

Its ironic that a case that had a valid point is held up as a fantastic example of the silly fivolous cases we all hate.

Michael

It is unfortunate that she burned herself badly but the lawsuit is still fivolous. How is coffee made? Water is boiled. Boiled water is hot (212 degrees). Most people do not want luke warm coffee or cold coffee if they drink it 5 minutes later.

Do you or anyone else you know wait until your coffee, soup, or other hot food is luke warm before you serve it to your family or friends? If you don't wait until it is luke warm, do you want to get sued by your friends?

If someone doesn't want hot coffee, it should be up to that person to use common sense and let the coffee cool for 5 minutes or more before handling the coffee or ask the server to keep the coffee behind the counter until it cools. Not everything should be someones elses fault.

MsElui

id say the coffee made with a coffee machine usually isnt boiling and the glass jug on a hotplate certainly doesnt keep it at near boiling point. Tea - yes I would hope for boiling water and treat it a little more carefully.

Michael

So should shops serve the water for tea luke warm since someone might burn themselves? Maybe that is why the Brits do not like tea in the US since maybe the shops are not serving the water hot. If the water is too hot, people still can still sue the establishment if they burn themselves because they still won't take responsibility for their own actions.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Had they simply disclosed to their customers that their coffee was 30-40 degrees F hotter than the norm, they may have avoided all of that litigation.

McDonald's chose to make a product that was different and more hazardous than the norm. They failed to disclose that to their customers, who understandably would have not have expected McDonald's coffee to be considerably hotter than any other coffee. The company knew that its coffee was hotter than the norm, as that was by design, yet it also failed to change it despite a great deal of prior litigation, which showed that their coffee was uniquely hazardous.

And if that wasn't enough, they initially failed to simply compensate Ms. Liebeck for her medical expenses, even though that's all she originally requested. Had they simply paid for her medical treatment, she wouldn't have pursued the case.

McDonald's is itself a chronic litigant. The McLibel case in Britain was a perfect example of how they will use the courts to prosecute frivolous cases of their own.

They deserved to lose the Liebeck case. If anything, the damages should have been greater, if but to teach them a lesson.

meauxna

Just installed a couple of new windows --- beware cleaning them off though; your hair may go frizzy!

Warning: Peeling off protective film may result in a static charge that could cause a shock or spark.


The horror!