The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit, and it baffles me that it has been used to actually argue against tort reform.
The Hot Coffee film was produced by a plaintiffs lawyer, and presents little more than emotional appeals. As a group, plaintiffs lawyers hated the publicity originally given to the MacDonalds suit, so perhaps it makes sense that some of them try so desperately to revise the standard interpretation.
> The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit
It's McDonalds, and I wonder if you know the actual facts of the case. McDonalds had received over 700 reports of burn victims from their coffee. They knew they were injuring people by the hundreds yet maintained policy that franchises should keep the coffee 40 degrees hotter than other establishments, a temperature so high it would cause 3rd degree burns in under 2 seconds.
McDonalds received 700 complaints out of 10 billion cups of coffee served. There will always be some number of people complaining regardless of the temperature, just like there will always be people foolish enough to put said coffee between their legs and fiddle with the lid. How many people do you suppose complained that their coffee is served too cool? If you say none I'm tempted to call you naive.
McDonalds coffee was not "40 degrees hotter" than other establishments. This came from her attorney during the trial and it's laughably false. Out of thin air it seems, he invented the axiom that coffee should never be served hotter than 60 deg C. McDonalds' corporate policy was, and still is, to serve coffee at around 80 C.
My coffee maker brews at 95-100 C. Your's does too. At all other times, your coffee maker maintains a temp of at least 85 C. Guess who else does this? Fucking everybody. The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be served at around 80 C. Starbucks, Daz Bog, Peaberry all serve coffee at or around... you guessed it: 80 C. Tell you what, go to a Starbucks and see what kind of reaction you get when you tell them they should lower the temperature of their coffee to help keep you safe. Remind them that you just might be stupid enough to squeeze the cup between your legs.
Stella Liebeck put a cup of hot coffee between her legs, and acted surprised that 1.) it spilled, and 2.) it burned. The arguments at trial were a textbook example of farce. Her lawyer monkeyed around about exactly how many seconds it takes for coffee at various temperatures to cause a burn. All the while dancing around the unspoken notion that Stella Liebeck did some kind of mental calculation based on some assumption of the temperature of McDonalds coffee, and rationally concluded that putting it between her legs was unlikely to cause pain or injury if it spilled.
Trying to argue your point using a picture of her legs is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Yes, that burn looks bad. Yes, it's too bad she chose to put a cup of hot coffee between her legs in order to fiddle with the top.
How about this: I'll show you a picture of my daughter's friend after she accidentally stabbed herself in the eye with a paring knife, and then you can politely agree that the knife maker should be sued for negligence.
The Hot Coffee film was produced by a plaintiffs lawyer, and presents little more than emotional appeals. As a group, plaintiffs lawyers hated the publicity originally given to the MacDonalds suit, so perhaps it makes sense that some of them try so desperately to revise the standard interpretation.