Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 133960" data-attributes="member: 151">Some of which is true, but irrelevant.  The claim of keeping the coffee in her lap was part of McDonald's case, which was disproven.  The 73-year old woman had no idea that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than any other restaurant.  McDonald's, on the other hand, had already settled 700 lawsuits and complaints concenring this issue.  The victim suffered 3rd degree burns, resulting in a 7-day hospital stay and thousands of dollars of medical bills over a period of time (including the necessity for skin grafts).  That she put the drink somewhere she shouldn't have is not the issue.  Had she spilled the coffee as she was putting it in the cup-holder, would that have made it more or less legitimate to be seriously burned by a cup of coffee?  In point of fact, she was opening the lid to add creamer and sugar, when it spilled.You don't expect coffee that you buy at McDonald's to be so hot that it delivers 3rd-degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds.  She has 17% permanent scarring on her body.  That's just not reasonable.  McDonald's was aware of this, but never bothered to inform customers or investigate the issue.  I don't kwow how hot you like your coffee, but when I buy coffee at the local Wawa, I don't worry that spilling it on me will result in a hospital stay.You read information that wasn't there.  The now 81 year-old woman only sued when McDonald's flat out denied her any compensation for her medical bills.  She did ask, and McDonald's decided that (unlike hundreds of similar cases they had already resolved).  The legal flogging I'm referring to was their behavior during HER trial.  Many of jurors initially thought this was a silly case, but based on the evidence and McDonald's behavior, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and then made an award of 2.7 million dollars.  They then reduced the judgement to 480,000 on appeal.  She had originally asked for $11,000, and McDonald's offered $800.  This number was later renegoitiated and then settled for an undisclosed amount.</blockquote>

Verification