And why would McDonalds agree to pay more than what the court determined? They either paid a lot less or they paid more because of their hidden agenda.

Who cares if it was her or her heirs? If something like this had happened to my mom when she was in her 70s, I would have urged her to file suit, too.

If I were on the jury I would have made Ray Kroc chug-a-lug a cup of his damn hot coffee.

I'm with you on this one, tracy. I was absolutely sickened when I read about her injuries

They did not pay more than the Court awarded based on the reduced award. It was a reasonable settlement, especially in light of the lack of liability.

There was also a case in which a customer went to the self serve coffee station. When returning the coffee carafe to the station, they struck the glass carafe against the corner of the hotplate. The carafe broke and hot coffee spilled everywhere, including on the patron. And who caused that one?

Finally, there's a Starbucks case in which a parent purchased Starbucks hot chocolate and handed it to the backseat to a three year old in her carseat, who spilled it in her lap. Sadly, the little girl sustained serious burns. Why would that be Starbucks' fault? Sorry, but that liability rests with the parents. Alas, word on the street is that Starbucks paid an undisclosed amout to settle that one also.

And just how long do you all who are anti-big business think corporations can pay for frivolous suits? A single suit can wipe out profits for a year or more.

Haven't you ever looked at that warning on your cup and thought, "It's really sad when a restaurant has to tell me that the hot beverage I ordered is hot."

Sheesh. Really.

"Oh - and what is carrying this failing economy right now? Who is driving down the unemployment rate? Who is funding all of that unemployment being paid to the unemployed?

Oh, yeah, that would be CORPORATIONS.
This has nothing to do with "big business." It is more a desperate example of why this country needs tort reform."

Oh - what is sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and not hiring, except overseas. Oh yeah, that would be corporations.

The unemployment rate went down mostly due to so many people giving up looking for a job. Thanks, corporations.

Let's keep giving corporations more tax breaks to send our jobs out of the country. Protect them more with tort reform so they aren't held responsible for their actions.

Well, you can take corporations out of a capitalistic society, and start to queue up the cheese lines.

"Oh - what is sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and not hiring, except overseas. Oh yeah, that would be corporations." We've had that chat before. You can do a search for it. I'll incorporate my responses by reference. They ARE hiring and the are not "sitting on 1.8 Trillion in cash." Corporations regularly retain nearly $2 Trillion in cash in order to stay liquid and pay their employees and investors. Save it for a rainy day. G*d knows it's raining. And snowing.

And as to that unemployment rate that went down? That's not because people gave up looking for a job. It's because their unemployment expired and they had to re-apply for the new round of funding.

I don't agree with outsourcing jobs. We agree there.

cat - I agree. I don't really get the significance of whose "idea" it was to sue. Unless we want to give them credit for the idea, which I think I do. It seems to me the important point is what an unusually unsafe temperature the coffee was. And that was not something a customer would be reasonably expected to know, it seems to me.

I was once in a diner with a large group of people, and the waitress reached across the table, and across me, to pour coffee in someone else's cup. She missed the cup and poured it on my thigh instead. I had been looking in another direction and didn't even know what had hit me, but let out an involuntary scream that quieted the entire restaurant. Fortunately the coffee was only very hot, not scalding. I got a burn all the way through my clothes that took a while to heal, but nothing really serious. (I didn't sue.) Two doctors were at the table with me, and they commented that if the coffee had landed on my baby, who was in a high chair next to me, instead of me, it would have meant a trip to the emergency room, and could have been very serious, since babies' skins are so tender.

There is no reason to serve near-scalding liquids in consumer situations - it's too dangerous.

NorCalif - Your description of a waitress pouring something on you is an enormous difference from the lady in question in the McDonald's case.

THe point of the heirs being the ones to push the suit was that they were wholly interested in their own interest - not their mother's interest. So, while McDonald's may have been found liable to the patron, they were NOT liable to her family members who stood to benefit from the settlement as her heirs.

mom23 - yeah, I know that in my incident it was all the waitress's fault (poor thing, I felt really sorry for her.) I wasn't citing that story as being a legal parallel -more just an example of how even normally hot coffee can be dangerous.

But I do think there's hot and there's hot. "Normally" hot coffee evidently isn't as likely to inflict the kind of injuries the McDonald's woman suffered. And I would want to know how hot the Starbucks hot chocolate was too, before I was too quick to blame only the parents. I don't expect soup in a restaurant to be boiling in my bowl, for example.

Yes and with the glass carafe, it was the restaurant's decision to have a self-serve coffee station with a glass carafe. They know that glass can break and cause injury, and that customers could burn themselves just by HANDLING a hot carafe. They neeed to take SOME of the responsibility.

The fast food giants are running scared. That's why they're putting millions into tort reform and more millions into trying to sway public opinion. Yes, Starbucks found guilty for putting out a product that a child would want, that could cause harm in an accident. Just like lead-painted toys, just like something on a crib that can choke. You put the product out there, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Sure the parents are responsible as well.

David Kelley took this even further last night on "Harry's Law" claiming that fat people need to take responsibility for eating chicken nuggets all week. But when corporations start putting this food IN THE SCHOOLS or selling it for 99c on every corner, the corporations also need to take responsibility for marketing a product that has 48 grams of saturated fat instead of 18. Their food is killing people, how is this different from a baby crib killing a baby? The only difference is that the crib might be 100% the manufacturers fault and the nuggets are only 25% McDonalds fault. But there definiteily IS fault there when PROFITS are deciding how many globs of added chicken fat go into the mcNuggetts.

Wow. I only can cite this, which sums up your entire position:

"Their food is killing people,..."

Really? Someone is shoving it down their throats? Forcing them to drive through and order it instead of a salad or grilled chicken? Come on. That's ridiculous and you can't even make that argument with a straight face.

The corporations don't "put it in the schools." The schools design their menus, select the foods and purchase. At most schools, there are healthy choices as well as some chicken nuggets on occasion. Teach your child what the healthy choices are and they will thrive with some exercise. If you have a beef with the menu, take it up with your local school.

Sheesh. Take some personal responsibility, will you? (Not directed at you, personally, but this is all victimology.) "I didn't do it, it did it to ME."

"I didn't drop the glass. The glass fell from my hand."

Ohhh.... How about this one... Well, a manufacturer should not make a drinking glass out of glass. It could fall from someones hand and break, potentially cutting them when they pick up the pieces. Now, I'll overstate my claim and sue the manufacturer because if I'm injured, regardless of who is at fault, I deserve someone else's money.

GREAT. Let's see how far that society gets with that thinking.

Totally agree with you mum23. Now we get this nonsense too.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/114929/u...rition-claims/

Where does it end?

How about bed bugs in hotels? Should we ask for a refund, or just deal with it? After all, it's not the hotel corporation's fault that the previous guest brought bugs along with them.

So the bites are bad, and you have an allergic reaction. $10,000 in medical bills when all is said and done as well as a ruined vacation. Are you going to accept a "free night voucher" from the hotel and call it a day? After all, it is YOUR responsibility for getting into a bed that had bugs in it....nobody forced you to stay in that hotel, right?. Or does the hotel take on some of the responsibility? Do they have an obligation to provide you with bite-free sleeping quarters?

I didn't say that anyone was forced to eat at McDonalds. But if they choose to, don't they have a right to eat "chicken" instead of trans fatty additives and ground bone meal? How about the chinese dumplings that were being made with SAWDUST as an ingredient? Don't sue the manufacturer because it was the customer's choice to eat the dumplings????

mom23: <i>Haven't you ever looked at that warning on your cup and thought, "It's really sad when a restaurant has to tell me that the hot beverage I ordered is hot."</i>

McDonald's should never, ever, ever, ever hand you anything that can cause a third-degree burn. Ever.

That about sums it up, doesn't it, mr_go?