![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
That is going to be one hell of a settlement.
That is going to be one hell of a settlement.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78160-100x100.png\")
Raw material here for another urban legend to be born.The Cato/Heritage/Chamber of Commerce lobby will swear that the cleaning soulution is good for her,while the Trial Lawyers/Consumer Advocates/People That Don't Want To Be Poisoned lobby will demand million$.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-439678-100x100.png\")
This almost seems like it could be like the lady with the finger chili at Wendy's. I'll hold out my judgement on this one
@snowburnt: Yeah...about the finger, since the chili is made on site, why not call the kitchen staff up front for a finger check. Hold your hands up, everyone got 10? Alrighty, then, lady planted it.
Though she very well could have slipped a little common cleaner in there.
@snowburnt: The details indicate that the McDonald's admitted the mistake - gave her a sample to take with her to the HR, and some milk to immediately counteract some of the pain.
@tmed: I assume you mean ER...If they admitted the mistake and took care of the problem, did they pay for her medical bills as well?
@snowburnt: Yes I meant ER - brain crossed. The article did not suggest so, but it is not clear on how the $100,000 number is reached. I expect that is where one of the difference of opinion is found - value for negligence and breach of warrenty.
@tmed: Your drink doesn't have a warranty. If it IS McDonald's fault, which it might well be, then yeah, negligence fits the bill.
@Con Seannery blames Obama for Facebookers: All products have a warrenty. the warrenty is that the product purchased will be as stated by the seller. Mickey D said he was selling Iced Tea, there was a warrenty between Mickey and Mrs. Burning Mouth for Mrs. Burning Mouth to receive Iced Tea, not cleaning solution (or anything else).
That is why she is suing for (in part) breach of warrenty.
@Snarkysnake: \"People That Don't Want To Be Poisoned lobby\" finally a lobby I can get behind, how do I sign up?
@JeffMc:
\" finally a lobby I can get behind, how do I sign up?\"
I'm pretty sure that you are already a member.
This is really scary. Talk about gross negligence... How do you confuse cleaning solution with iced tea?
@DePaulBlueDemon: Well you see, they put the cup under the cleaning fluid drink dispenser, which was linked up to the cleaning fluid syrup canister, which had been delivered by the cleaning fluid drink guy, shipped from the McDonald's cleaning fluid drink product team at the warehouse....
@DePaulBlueDemon: I think it could have easily been an accident. I mean, this women obviously couldn't tell cleaning solution from iced tea when it approached her mouth. Don't get me wrong, it's inexcusable and I agree that the victim should file the suit against McDonald's. But I wouldn't automatically assume it was done on purpose. An employee could have mistook is just as easily as this customer did.
@SabreDC: I think McD should take it as an opportunity for decent PR recovery. \"Yeah, we had an honest accident. The tea tank was getting cleaned, it wasn't communicated properly, and she accidentally got a cup of cleaner. Thanks to fast action on the part of the customer and employees, a potential disaster was averted. We have settled for the cost of the customer's medical bills and free iced tea for life, cleaner free.\"
Something like that.
@SabreDC: Through a straw it might not be that noticable.
Likely the cleaning solution would have been to dissolve tea residue from the stainless steel.
So it probably looked a lot like Iced Tea.
@Snowblind: I understand that and I agree. I'm just saying that the employee who poured the drink may have simply mistaken it for iced tea as well, especially if it dissolved tea residue and looked like iced tea. I'm not suggesting that the customer is wrong or anything; I'm just saying that she mistook it and it's very possible that the employee did as well and that it might not have been an act of malice.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-321187-100x100.png\")
@DePaulBlueDemon: Because you didn't pay attention in the part of Food Handling Safety class where they emphasize the importance of NOT storing food and cleaners together, and NEVER re-using food containers for storage.
Or because you did it on purpose.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103994-100x100.png\")
@DePaulBlueDemon: I believe it was done on purpose by the employees.
If you read the article, it talks about the person got the store to open part that was previously closed (not sure exactly what that was - maybe they already cleaned it and did not want anyone to dirty it up - or they were trying to close and the person demanded service because they should still be open for another 3 minutes) - no matter why, it probable pissed off an employee who did it on purpose... would be my guess.
@coan_net:
That's what I thought at first too, coan_net. But in actuality, the customer demanded to be let in after the incident. (She got the tea at the drive-thru). They let her in so she could get some milk (?) and to get the brochure for the cleaner to give to the ER docs.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
@DePaulBlueDemon: Milk neutralizes a lot of things-actually, a smart move on the part of whoever thought of it.
@Coles_Law: The part about the milk was probably on the packet.
When I do happen to read cleaning labels, I like to know what to do if I happen to swallow some. Although usually I'm more concerned with what the chemical is and with which other chemicals it can be mixed.
@DePaulBlueDemon: Somebody was probably cleaning the tea urn at the time and didn't tell the person who filled the drink.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-357824-100x100.png\")
@DePaulBlueDemon: Probably filled the container with cleaner the night before and never emptied it out. How the person getting the drink didnt notice that iced tea isnt supposed to be blue or green or whatever, i have no idea.
Either that, or just a pissed off employee looking for a reason to quit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-110550-100x100.png\")
@DePaulBlueDemon: It's not that hard and I've actually seen this happen on more than one occasion when I worked fast food in high school.
Someone goes to close out the sweet tea tanks and adds the cleaner but doesn't clear the lines all the way and forgets to tell the cashiers that the tea is out for the night. Someone goes to fill a cup and it looks like tea since there's still some in the lines, but it's tainted with the cleaning solution.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103766-100x100.png\")
@brianala: Yep, that's the most likely. I've had the same experience with the sweet tea containers in food service. The person cleaning it often puts the concentrate straight into the reservoir, then adds the requisite gallon of water. But the concentrate has already settled in the spout and might not mix.
Sounds like sloppy work and she should win, no problem.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159004-100x100.png\")
The name of the solution was Ipton's Iced Teal cleaning solution.
So it's easy to see how they got confused.
\"In the suit filed last week, Jones seeks $100,000 on counts of negligence and breach of warranty. \"
I can't believe she is letting them off that easy.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
@CarlR: She only took a sip. To get to the big money, you gotta really chug the stuff, 6 ounces or so. Yeah, it's risky, but the payoff is huge.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-546560-100x100.png\")
@CarlR: My first thought was that she was going to follow the pattern of turning a mistake into a personal jackpot. But nope, $100K doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. Score one for being reasonable.
@plutonyum: I'd say cover medical bills and fair compensation for time lost, then maybe a few grand as an apology. So, for all I know, might be $100k.
@CarlR: She likely has a good conscience and a good lawyer, who has advised that this is not a good spot to go for punitive damages, as there is no pattern of negligence, this is a screw-up that the franchise seems to have legitimately taken seriously since it happened (getting her the sample - giving her milk)
The coffee case had exactly the opposite situation, McDonald's choosing to put it's customers at risk after repeated warnings and injuries.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-4166-100x100.png\")
wah, mcdonalds served me a cup full of toxic chemicals! i want a handout!!! wah!!
back in my time, you didn't get dessert until you finished your all your solvents and de-greasers. kids these days. sheesh.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-489342-100x100.png\")
Mmmm...sweet, delicious cleaning fluid. Sounds just as tasty as everything else at McD's!
I wonder if they did it on purpose, though. That's one hell of an accidental mistake. I mean, I don't keep bottles of cleaning fluid next to my iced tea. Do you?
@nicemarmot617: It's not that difficult, if you read my reply to someone above I've seen this happen when I worked in fast food.
Someone from the back starts cleaning up early and puts the cleaner in the sweet tea tank but forgets to tell the cashiers. So the cashier goes to fill a cup and it still looks like tea, since there's some left in the lines.
Generally we would try to mark the tanks when they were out for the night by placing a cup over the spigot but if that falls off or they forget to put it on there I can easily see it happening.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-55114-100x100.png\")
@nicemarmot617:
No, but in order to clean the machine, the fluid must at some point actually placed into the machine.
Someone probably didn't empty it from closing the night before. The person in the morning didn't look closely enough to realize that it wasn't tea he/she was putting in the cup.
@Murph1908: \"No, but in order to clean the machine, the fluid must at some point actually placed into the machine.\"
Reminds me of a NotAlwaysRight story... [notalwaysright.com]
\"Nothing is more important to me than the well-being of my customers,\"
I thought your employees were always number one?
But I digress, If she did get chemical pharyngitis and tonsillitis from her value drink then this is indeed a
legitimate lawsuit like fjordtjie said.
@Blueskylaw: I love this website because people notice the bullshit and clichéd responses like \"taking it seriously.\" Another one of my favorites is politicians saying \"I categorically deny\" blah blah blah.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
Times are really tough when a McDonald's suit is only worth $100,000. Maybe she'll get apple pie too
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-199488-100x100.png\")
I had some seriously funny-tasting McD's iced tea once when I was visiting back home (MO).
I doubt it was cleaning solution though. I just threw it out and drank water. I'm sure my blood sugar thanked me.
@shorty63136: I got some teryaki sauce from Food Lion in the cabinet. That stuff tastes a little funky. Like, not food product funky.
Sounds like she had regular old McDonald's food to me... Especially if it was their sweet tea. That stuff is just sugar water now.
Kinda doubt it was an accident.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66939-100x100.png\")
Someone must have screwed up an missed a couple of zeros in that $100,000 sue sum. Eating a lot of Big Macs will do that to you.
q
Question: Would you be willing to take a little sip and spit of that McDonald's concoction in order to possibly set yourself up financially for life?
Second question: Do you really believe this story?
@kwsventures: $100K minus costs minus legal fees = \"set up financially for life\"? Where the hell do you live, rural China?
How about this story.
What if the machine was just cleaned and not all of the cleaning agents were flushed out?
@kwsventures: No. The scorching pain and chemical burns would not be worth it. I have a friend who used to huff and accidentally swallowed cleaner while high. He has no taste buds and cannot swallow anything warmer than 60 degrees. It would do permanent damage.
Yes I believe some moron served a customer cleaner.
@kwsventures: Yes - if I knew it WOULD set me, financially, for life.
Do I believe it? Yeah. It's McDonald's - the story isn't that far-fetched. I've seen what the orange juice looks like before they put it in the dispenser (in the locations where they don't have the bottled juice).
@shorty63136: So have I... it's a bag of orange juice. What are you getting at? It looks like any orange juice you buy in a carton at the grocery store...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-535696-100x100.png\")
This lawsuit I could actually see. The whole hot coffee thing was definitely rediculous, but I'd be pissed off if I got Mr. Clean instead of Mr. Coffee.
@ohenry: Cute alliteration, but I suspect concentrated industrial cleaning solution is more acutely toxic than Mr. Clean.
And hopefully you are now more educated on the hot coffee lawsuit as well. People here are so eloquent about that! My boss actually mentioned it in a meeting yesterday, and I cringed, but didn't say anything. Next time I will!
@ohenry:
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just trolling...
The \"Hot Coffee\" law suit was far from \"rediculous\".
Mcdonalds had been keeping their coffee 10-20 degrees hotter than outlined in the health code regulations and memos surface that Mcdonalds corporate wanted them to keep it this temperature in contradiction to their own safety regulations. They did this because when the coffee was stored hotter they found they sold more of it.
When she spilled this coffee on herself it wasn't just hot...It melted her skin away and fused her labia. There's some nasty pictures out there on the internet. Normal coffee isn't supposed to do this to you.
Further, she contacted the Mcdonalds in question requesting they help her with the medical bills, they refused. Finally she sued them, for ONLY the amount of the medical bills. Mcdonalds was found partially responsible for her injuries (something like 60-80%) not fully responsible since she did spill the coffee. In addition they jury saw fit to award her something like 2 million dollars in punitive damages. This number was brought down to about $400k on appeal.
Please don't post anything about the \"hot coffee\" lawsuit or any other lawsuit that you think is \"rediculous\" without having the facts.
@snowburnt: Well, I'll be damned. Truth be told, it really wasn't an informed statement, I never really followed it very closely other than the loosely thrown media reports of it. I thank you for filling me in! :)
That being said, I'll be real honest, you come of like a jerk in your post. I don't mean to sound attacking, but checking my posting history, I see no reason to assume I would be trolling in any fashion. I also don't appreciate being told \"not to post\" just because I don't have the full facts; I don't feel like researching everything before every post I ever make. A simple clarification like you provided would have sufficed.
@ohenry: The hot coffee thing was not ridiculous. McDonalds was serving their coffee at a temperature significantly higher than any other restaurant (180-190 degrees, whereas most coffee you make at home is about 150). Their coffee could cause near instant third degree burns, even if you just took a sip it could severely burn your mouth. Let's be honest, if you accidentally spill some fresh coffee on you, you don't expect it to give you third degree burns. The general public had no idea that the coffee was served hot enough to cause that type of damage.
Investigation into the incident revealed that there had been more than 700 other serious injuries due to the heat of the coffee and mcDonalds knew the danger behind it, but did nothing to make it safer.
McDonald's is probably the safest place in the world to eat (because of constant lawsuits). Sounds like an honest mistake... but they shouldn't have let her in after hours.
Everybody's looking for a bailout...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@RoyBurdick: They didn't just \"let her in after hours,\" though. After she had been injured by the product they sold her in the drive-through, they sensibly allowed her to obtain a sample of what she was injured by and gave her some milk to dilute it, even though it required allowing her access to a part that had been closed up. That's probably a reason why her amount sought is so low--the store responded reasonably and helpfully when they were informed of what happened.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-172388-100x100.png\")
Now THIS is why you sue!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334007-100x100.png\")
ummm...does this lady have a nose?!?!?
if it's supposed to be mixed with gallons of water then imagine how POTENT the smell has to be of whatever the heck they served her...!!?? I mean you bring that cup near your face and you probably think \"hmmm...tea or tilex\"?
the world is depressing me....geeesh!
@ceez:
Actually they use the same sanitizer that my company uses for our drink towers, its odorless and clear, the only difference between that and regular water is that if you agitate it heavily (think shaking a martini) it will foam up a little bit. Other than that you have no idea, its diluted into 1 gallon of water and even using that you are supposed to rinse the nozzles/lines before serving with them again because it is very powerful.
Its some dangerous stuff
@tmed: This is one of the critical things people don't understand about the McDonald's case - one of the major reasons they lost is because they gave a story about the rationale for serving the coffee so hot that openly contradicted their own extensive research of how their coffee was consumed.
They pleaded that they served the coffee so hot because they assumed people drank it when they arrived at their destination, and not in their cars. However, every bit of research they had showed that people drank the coffee in their cars right after they got it, and they even geared the design of their coffee service towards car-drinkers.
There's an inherent assumption of risk in eating or drinking anything - it's why restaurants aren't responsible for previously unknown (to the consumer) allergic reactions to food. However, one of the risks you generally don't take is that the food or drink served to you is served in a manner that renders it physically dangerous. And courts tend to take custom as non-controlling in tort cases, precisely because \"industry standard\" isn't always a reasonable person standard.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@ceez:
Sometimes when my allergies are bothering me, I can't smell anything either. Maybe she just couldn't smell it.
@ceez: Having worked at McDonald's, these cleaning solutions do have a pretty strong smell. But that's not the point. Not everyone's senses are the same. Maybe she can't smell anything? The point is that when you buy a drink at a restaurant, you put your trust in that restaurant to actually give you a drink.
@ceez: If you didn't live in your basement and have your mom do all your cleaning for you, you'd know that lots of cleaning solutions don't have a caustic smell.
@ceez:
There are lots of cleaning fluids that have no smell, especially degreasers. And if it's diluted into the tea, then the smell may not be immediately detectable.
Oh, wait, this is a blame the victim post. My bad. Carry on.
sounds like a set up, lets see if it turns out she knew someone employed there
@TrueBlue63: same thing with opening packages in the store to see if the contents you bought are the actual things and not a fake.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104987-100x100.png\")
Yeah, the woman who found a finger in her chili - that was a set up.
A woman who ingests chemicals? Even if it was a setup, good luck trying to prove it. No reasonable person who put them-selfs at risk like that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-355288-100x100.png\")
Somehow, I just don't see how \"rest assured\" and \"we take this matter seriously\" can be used in the same sentence from a corporate entity, and still be \"taken seriously\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-291961-100x100.png\")
Hmmm...
Baltimore City Circuit Court
City Circuit...
Maybe they'll go business out-of.
(drumroll)
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Try the veal.
I think this was probably an honest mistake. (Put cleaner in an urn, and when one got emptied, somebody forgot to check that there was tea in the next urn and not cleaner.)
This was not a bad reaction on McDonald's part. They gave her milk, which is certainly the right thing to do, did NOT induce vomiting (vomiting is the WRONG thing to do with caustic, nasty, crap), and gave her the information she would need at the hospital for treatment.
It could have been better if they offered to drive her there or summoned an ambulance, but overall, not bad on McD's part.
I am hoping McD's offered to pay the medical bills without a fuss. Nevertheless, a lawsuit is not necessarily out of line for pain and suffering damages. Assuming this was just an innocent mistake, and not a systematic failure of corporate policy, punitive damages would probably be out of line.
SirWired
@sirwired: Agreed. And it sounds like the best thing they did was read the label on the stuff she just drank for \"in case of ingestion\" procedures.
Since when do you use toxic cleaners to clean out a food storage device?
@Thomas Romano: How do you clean your fixed-in-place 4gal. tea urn once a day in compliance with health code?
It's not McDonald's policy to serve cleaning fluid. This was a stupid employee's mistake. Blaming McDondald's corporate is stupid. Mistakes do happen. The store should have insurance that should cover the medical expenses and that should be that.
A few years ago an attorney friend gave me the entire case from the coffee incident. the most important part of it came from a meeting between the mcdonald's higher ups in which they discussed the temperature of the coffee. They had dozens of reports of major burns but decided that it was worth more money to pay off the occasional lawsuit than to make those people unhappy who wanted their coffee to still be hot when they got to work. They knew, without a doubt, that if it hit your skin you would get 3rd degree burns.
The lady had put the cup between her legs to reach for something and the lid, which was not fastened all the way, popped off and it spilled onto her legs and burned her through sweatpants. that is hot.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-236034-100x100.png\")
Years ago, when I was a busboy at The Last Supper, we always used an inverted cup over the handle to indicate, 'do not use'. To me, the person dispensing it should have caught it.
At least she wasn't a complete klutz who dumped hot coffee in her own lap.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1705-100x100.png\")
As a McD's Manager in Fargo, ND, perhaps I can shed some light here.
The cleaning solution that we use (at least at our store) is pink, sometimes a bright red. Now, it was late at night, so I could see how they could have made a mistake if they had been cleaning the decanter before close (which we aren't supposed to do, but I've done it).
That said, You would sure hope to hell someone would notice that the tea is bright pink, not brown. What ignorance! Whoever served it had to have been a complete and total idiot!
They screwed up badly, giving her the fluid. Cool to bash them on that. But the taking it seriously part? They didn't reject payments, they gave her a sample of the stuff so the doctors would know what they gave her. Please.
When in doubt, break out the cleaning fluid.
My first reaction was:
How could she tell the difference between the Iced Tea and the cleaning fluid? I would think they would taste the same.
Pretty obvious this woman hates McDonalds *AND* America! Who the hell does she think she is?!?!?
This is a legitimate lawsuit, as was the infamous coffee incident, well initially...
The \"coffee\" lady spilled coffee on herself and suffered 3rd degree burns within seconds. Seconds. The burns were so severe that she had to get skin grafts. She asked that McDs cover the cost of her surgery, but they refused. Before this incident, Mc Ds had been sued, albeit unsuccessfully, a handful of times for the EXACT SAME PROBLEM. They made a concession to lower the temp of their coffee, but eventually increased the temp back to super-mega, skin melting hot.
If it is hot enough to burn the flesh away from your thighs, it's too hot to drink. Ya think?
Here is where it gets stupid. The coffee lady's attorney pushed her to sue for an ungodly amount of money since Mc Ds refused to cover the cost of her surgeries. She went along for the ride and is now sitting pretty, with the exception of her scared abdomen and thighs, on a pile of cash. The suer's motivation? To teach Mc D's a lesson. I just think that the \"lesson\" was a little too lucrative.
They talked about the risk of this at WHMIS training at the restaurant I work at. Never thought that it would happen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-5573-100x100.png\")
As someone whose had somewhat diluted sanitizer served to them instead of water, it's pretty easy to mistake. No smell, no color, and no indication of the contents of the glass if you're using a straw. The sip tasted like dish soap mixed with varnish, and my stomach was a mess pretty quickly. I was sick until the puking turned into heaving.
How can McDonalds mix the two up? Seems like an odd claim to me. Cleaning liquids aren't sitting around on the counter next to the tea machine. And if they were, someone would have to be pretty stupid to open the cleaning container, pour tea in ...
I worked at McD's as a teen. Once, I warmed up a grill towel and wrapped it in cheeseburger paper and then put it up front as a joke on one of the cashiers. To my surprise, a different cashier sent it out the drive-thru window with an order. The customer came back and yelled at us A LOT. I had to humble-up and apologize. Luckily, the guy saw the humor in it and accepted a free meal. I had to work crap jobs for a week to avoid being fired. I think I saw my manager giggle when they guy said \"do you think this is funny? do you?\" though.
Sounds fishy, there has to be more to this story.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2180-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-171069-100x100.png\")
mcdonalds sold me hot coffee and i spilled it on myself? i ate at mcdonalds 3 times a day and it made me fat?
mcdonalds served me caustic chemicals instead of a drink and it burnt my pharynx! finally, a legitimate lawsuit!
@fjordtjie: i retract my statement about the hot coffee, but the 'it made me fat' lawsuit still stands.
@fjordtjie: \"mcdonalds sold me hot coffee and i spilled it on myself?\"
Yes. The coffee was hot enough to BURN THROUGH the outer layers of skin; this is called \"undrinkable.\" Compounding this problem is the fact that someone else had ALREADY BEEN BURNED by the hot coffee at the same location.
Now let me ask you this: if you had the same 3d degree burns from the coffee as Stella Liebeck (shown in the photo below), would you not consider suing the establishment that sold you an obviously defective product?
Warning: graphic photo
[i651.photobucket.com]
@fjordtjie:
Add me to the list of people who are sick and tired of seeing the (legitimate) McDonald's hot coffee case being cited time and again as an example of a frivolous suit -- especially on a consumer site!
@fjordtjie: The hot coffee incidient was far, far more legitimate, you sheep. Read past the headlines, and the opinions of other people who have only read the headlines. Remember the damages were punitive, and try to get a handle on just how big McDonald's is, and how big something has to be to be punitive. Think about fines in pro sports - does $10k really matter?
McDonald's coffee case is an example of a jury doing it's job correctly, thoroughly, and fairly.
[www.lectlaw.com]
@fjordtjie: If you're referring to the infamous \"McDonalds Hot Coffee Case\", that it hardly as one-sided as a lot of people think it is.