A number of errors and misleading assertions in your post:
This has never been a realistic test for adequacy of compensation. Let's say you get a million for a wrongful death - would you consent to be killed for a million bucks? Ridiculous! How about a hundred grand for loss of an eye? No person of good mental health would take the deal up front.
Besides the jury pretty much admitted that they punished McDonald's for the callous way they treated the woman's initial complaint. They might have been guilty of not putting the lid on properly - I don't know, but she WAS STUPID to put it between her legs. Do you ever do that? I sure as hell don't. Not HOT
or CAUSTIC liquids, for sure. I know people with IQs simlar to their shoe size who have sense enough not to do that. BUT they should never had said that to her! Insult to injury and it cannot lead to good things.
If I'm not mistaken the award has not yet been fully paid and is under appeal.
|Quoting Adh214 (Reply 10):|
a restaurant that deliberately serves coffee too hot to avoid having to serve refills?"
This might be somewhat valid at sea level but this incident occurred at Albuquerque New Mexico, roughly 5300' above sea level. At a barometric pressure of 29.92"hg (standard) water boils at 202.4°F at that altitude. The McDonald's franchise manual at that time
reportedly instructed that coffee was to be brewed at between 195°F and 205°F. The latter being above the boiling point would have been unusable. The franchise holder in question would have discovered empirically that in order to avoid boiling off the brew water he had to adjust toward the lower side of that envelope.
Let us assume that the brew temperature was 200°F on that day. If the coffee was served in their usual fashion it was a single paper cup. Someone else will have to calculate the heat loss from that, but I've never noticed that their cups have any remarkable insulating properties. I'd bet that at the time of her burn (assuming that the spill happened as she left the restauraunt drive-through) the actual temperature of the liquid was just about the same as my local Starbuck's serves, 190-195 or so.
I don't believe for a moment that the coffee was anywhere near as hot as it would have been at a sea-level restaurant. If she put cream in it, it would likely have been down in the 180s. Of course cream would have aggravated the burn because it clings to the skin more readily and gives off its heat more slowly than does coffee - which is really just water. That's why cities under seige didn't pour boiling water on the attackers - the water cools too rapidly.
|Quoting Adh214 (Reply 10):|
and now McD coffee is served at a reasonable temperature
No. Now it is served too cold for carry-out.
More importantly, "subsequent remedial action" is not considered evidence of liability and cannot be used to establish it. Lots and lots of case law to support that statement.
Last but not least, with all due sympathy to an injured person, frankly, an 81-year old woman's genitals are not worth 2.9 million and the money should have come out of the jurors' pockets, not the restaurant. It IS
evidence of a judicial system gone mad. It is one of the worst single things about the western world now, and a major reason for the jobs going to former 3rd world countries - the obscene notion that IF
you are injured THEN you deserve money.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.