Conservative Populism and the McDonald's Coffee Case

[Sims2789]

Conservative populism is where the powers of a society (i.e., the land, the throne, and the altar or whoever the plutocrats are) unite the people against perceived threats by "liberal elites." One of these threats is tort reform, i.e., the US judicial system is full of frivolous lawsuits, and people often win these lawsuits, so we should change our judicial system to prevent them (this ties into the "activist court" rhetoric employed by many conservatives).

A good example is the McDonald's coffee case, where a woman spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and as a result sued McDonald's and won. In this case, however, the coffee was served as hot as 200 degrees Farenheit (water boils at 212 F) whereas the industry standard is 140 F. At 200 F, coffee causes second- to third-degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds of contact with the skin. Despite this, this case is often depicted as a frivolous lawsuit.

When a man announced he was sueing McDonald's for his obesity, the media went afrenzy. Thirteen states passed laws specifically outlawing sueing a fast food company for one's own obesity. When the suit was thrown out less than a month later, without even reaching court, there was not a peep in the liberal media about personal responsibility for one's own weight being protected by our activist court.

Cases like this are often used to make it harder to sue insurance companies. Also, polticians use the "lawyers' greed" to rally the masses against these educated demons (Though many would argue that a lawyer representing a plaintiff in a class-action suit is him capitalizing on an opportuniy to gain money, and government attempts to curtail this are restricting the natural flow of the economy). Furthermore, conservative politicians (and Democrats who support misnomered tort reform) fail to point out that class-action lawsuits, though only resulting in us getting two free pay-per-view movies, help keep the corporations in line. Thus, by arousing populist sentiments against a liberal, educated elite or in defense of one being wrongfully sued, a politican can both gain money for their campaign contributors (by making it harder for people to sue them) and raise their approval ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corp.#The_accident_itself

 

[amadeus]

The woman had a cup of coffee sitting between her legs. A cup of coffee.

Think McFly, think!

 

[Leonel]

Now make like a tree... and split!

 

[covok48]

Coffee is best served hot. Ever had lukewarm coffee?

"Cases like this are often used to make it harder to sue insurance companies."

They also shoot insurance rates through the roof which makes it harder to buy and maintain it. They also drive up healthcare cost, discourage practice in fear of malpractice, make a mockery of the legal system, expand legislation to protect people from themselves, and raise my taxes.

Sorry but I'm not understanding the point of your post because it makes no sense. I don't think this is a conservative vs. liberal problem no matter how much you want it to be. This is a legal problem that will solve itself when people start taking some damned responsibility for themselves.

 

[Sims2789]

Coffee is best served hot. Ever had lukewarm coffee?

"Cases like this are often used to make it harder to sue insurance companies."

They also shoot insurance rates through the roof which makes it harder to buy and maintain it. They also drive up healthcare cost, discourage practice in fear of malpractice, make a mockery of the legal system, expand legislation to protect people from themselves, and raise my taxes.

Sorry but I'm not understanding the point of your post because it makes no sense. I don't think this is a conservative vs. liberal problem no matter how much you want it to be. This is a legal problem that will solve itself when people start taking some damned responsibility for themselves.

The point is that the McDonald's case is a legitimate lawsuit, not a frivolous one, and that conservative politicians employ populism through "tort reform", which results in it being harder to sue insurance companies.

[/in a nonaccusatory tone] Your argument is basically the same as that used by politicians (who are more often than not conservatives) running on tort reform, as frivolous lawsuits don't "shoot insurance rates through the rood" because most are thrown out before even reaching court, and the plaintiffs are often fined.

Furthermore, why doesn't McDonald's take social responsibility for serving coffee sixty degrees above the industry standard? She didn't sue McDonald's becasue she spilled the coffee; she sued them because they served it so hot that it gave her third-degree burns.

 

[covok48]

"Also, they don't "shoot insurance rates through the rood", since most frivolous lawsuits are thrown out before even reaching court, and the plaintiffs are fined."

MOST not ALL. Key words there, it only takes one frivolous lawsuit it ruin a company so it's kinda in a way like the 'lawsuit lottery'. And as much as I want to believe what you're saying, it just ain't so because this isn't a polorized issue.

Also the above statement implies to me you don't pay insurance of any kind which hurts your credibility.

And no self respecting coffee drinker would put a steaming cup of coffee inbetween their legs and then sue over it...ever. Ther are cupholders for a reason and people who drink coffee know it's hot and like it that way. She deserves a Darwin award, not a fiscal one.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, duh...the cup had a warning on it and it doesnt take a braniac to realize that hot coffee is possibly...hot. Lawsuits like this just absolve the person of all responsibility of their own personal actions. She spilled her own coffee on herself. Regrettable, yes, but still her own dang fault.

The lady is lucky I wasnt sitting on her jury.

 

[CaptainF]

The lady is lucky I wasnt sitting on her jury.

Or else it might end up like that one movie: "Runaway Jury" Starring Gene Hackman and John Cusack.

 

[Mathilda]

Well, duh...the cup had a warning on it ...

For some reason I always thought that the warnings came after this case.
Then again, I don't live in the US.
Maybe the warnings made their way all the way here after the case.

 

[Perfection]

Well, duh...the cup had a warning on it and it doesnt take a braniac to realize that hot coffee is possibly...hot.

Hot yes, third-degree vaginal burn hot, though that's a different manner. The coffee was served at an extremely high temperature far above what would expect. And yes, she did sue for too much and the jury awarded her too much, that's why the judge lowered the payment significantly.

 

[.Shane.]

The woman had a cup of coffee sitting between her legs. A cup of coffee.

Think McFly, think!

QFI

Most people do not know the background of this case, but like to use it all the time to make point XYZ ala this post w/out learning the background and reality of the case.

Fact:
*the amount the lady won was reduced significantly on appeal
*she had a legitimate case. McDonalds had been warned many times about their coffee being excessively hot. There's a good record of it and its not hard to find. (edit: just read the linked wiki article and its pretty clear.)

She had a good case.

As to the idea of Populism... In its first iteration in the late 1800s it was a very Progressive movement. It coupled a lot of what, today, we'd call "liberal" economic reform with a conservative social agenda (elements of prohibition, immigration restrictions).

 

[Sidhe]

Conservative populism is where the powers of a society (i.e., the land, the throne, and the altar or whoever the plutocrats are) unite the people against perceived threats by "liberal elites." One of these threats is tort reform, i.e., the US judicial system is full of frivolous lawsuits, and people often win these lawsuits, so we should change our judicial system to prevent them (this ties into the "activist court" rhetoric employed by many conservatives).

A good example is the McDonald's coffee case, where a woman spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and as a result sued McDonald's and won. In this case, however, the coffee was served as hot as 200 degrees Farenheit (water boils at 212 F) whereas the industry standard is 140 F. At 200 F, coffee causes second- to third-degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds of contact with the skin. Despite this, this case is often depicted as a frivolous lawsuit.

When a man announced he was sueing McDonald's for his obesity, the media went afrenzy. Thirteen states passed laws specifically outlawing sueing a fast food company for one's own obesity. When the suit was thrown out less than a month later, without even reaching court, there was not a peep in the liberal media about personal responsibility for one's own weight being protected by our activist court.

Cases like this are often used to make it harder to sue insurance companies. Also, polticians use the "lawyers' greed" to rally the masses against these educated demons (Though many would argue that a lawyer representing a plaintiff in a class-action suit is him capitalizing on an opportuniy to gain money, and government attempts to curtail this are restricting the natural flow of the economy). Furthermore, conservative politicians (and Democrats who support misnomered tort reform) fail to point out that class-action lawsuits, though only resulting in us getting two free pay-per-view movies, help keep the corporations in line. Thus, by arousing populist sentiments against a liberal, educated elite or in defense of one being wrongfully sued, a politican can both gain money for their campaign contributors (by making it harder for people to sue them) and raise their approval ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corp.#The_accident_itself

I'm not convinced at all.

The lady did something foolish and she got burned, she should take responsibility for her own actions and not try and palm them off on another party. My kettle boils water to this dangerous level. If I make a cup of coffee or if I buy one I expect it to be boiling hot, tea and coffee taste better when the infusion is done at close to boiling point, if it isn't then frankly I don't want to drink it, bearing this in mind, I've burnt my tongue in many a restaurant in my life, I didn't whinge my head off, I just slapped myself for being such an idiot as to take gulp of coffee before making sure how hot it was.

No matter how you want to spin it, the lady had an accident born of her own stupidity, and the law suit is bogus.

Of course she was pissed at her medical bill and wanted a free ride for her senseless actions, but that doesn't change the fact that Mcdonalds isn't responsible IMO.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

For some reason I always thought that the warnings came after this case.
Then again, I don't live in the US.
Maybe the warnings made their way all the way here after the case.

You are correct.

All it is now is "your product made me hurt myself while I was doing something stupid with it, give me money money MONEY!"

And this is why I try to stay clear of people like this.

 

[Elrohir]

Or else it might end up like that one movie: "Runaway Jury" Starring Gene Hackman and John Cusack.

That movie was awful; one anti-gun propaganda piece after another.

Anyway, what point, exactly, are you trying to make Sims? There are a lot of stupid lawsuits, including the one you mentioned. (If you put hot coffee between you're legs while driving, and it spills, it's your fault, not McDonalds. Grow up and take responsibility for your own stupid mistakes. Sheesh.)

 

[RedWolf]

The lady did something foolish and she got burned, she should take responsibility for her own actions and not try and palm them off on another party. My kettle boils water to this dangerous level. If I make a cup of coffee or if I buy one I expect it to boiling hot, tea and coffee taste better when the infusion is done at close to boiling point, if it isn't then frankly I don't want to drink it, bearing this in mind, I've burnt my tongue in many a restaurant in my life, I didn't whinge my head off, I just slapped myself for being such an idiot as to take gulp of coffee before making sure how hot it was.

Well consider this - if some other company sold me a product that upon me properly immediately using it would cause a sever injury should I not have a case?

Particularly if the corporation had been warned about the danger of their product?

It's also interesting that other places serve their coffee at a much cooler (yet still hot) temperature. I work in the automotive industry and we've taken courses on corporate liability. As you would expect in the auto industry there is a certain set of government mandated safety standards. ie: "This latch must be able to withstand X amount of pressure in an accident"

Different governments obviously have varying levels of standards and many companies strive to meet those higher standards EVERYWHERE regardless of where they're selling their product. In a liability lawsuit this is often considered... ie: THESE companies are meeting THIS HIGHER level of safety on their product... so why were you not also doing so, considering it would be expected to save lives? This can happen even considering the comapny being sued is meeting the minimum legal safety standards.

It's all about reasonable expectations - if your coffee is WAY hotter then everybody else's coffee - and they're doing so to avoid burns.. you should be able to reasonably understand that your product is more dangerous and an exception to the norm.

 

[RedWolf]

You are correct.

All it is now is "your product made me hurt myself while I was doing something stupid with it, give me money money MONEY!"

And this is why I try to stay clear of people like this.

I don't think coffee between the legs is the point... it was TOO HOT. If she had of drank it (the normal intended use) it would equally have injured her - which shows product liability.

 

[Paradigne]

McDonalds has always been known for it's HOT coffee. A lot of people would go there simply because it was hotter than anywhere else. OK, she may not have known it was THAT hot, but I feel it really doesn't matter.

People do stupid things http://www.darwinawards.com/ but feel it isn't there fault. I'm for getting rid of ALL warning labels and letting nature take it's course...

 

[RedWolf]

McDonalds has always been known for it's HOT coffee. A lot of people would go there simply because it was hotter than anywhere else. OK, she may not have known it was THAT hot, but I feel it really doesn't matter.

Why would somebody bother drinking McDonalds coffee anyway? Judging from the quality of their other food I can't imagine it's very good.

Being HOT, by itself does not make coffee good.

An earlier post mentioned that Starbucks has stole market share due to the temperature... I'd argue that Starbucks has stolen market share due to better tasting coffee.

 

[Shylock]

Why cons always blame everything on the libs and libs blame everything on the cons?

I'm a Libertarian, I blame them both. They are both for more government regulation and intervention which is where the probelms start.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Cases like this are often used to make it harder to sue insurance companies. Also, polticians use the "lawyers' greed" to rally the masses against these educated demons (Though many would argue that a lawyer representing a plaintiff in a class-action suit is him capitalizing on an opportuniy to gain money, and government attempts to curtail this are restricting the natural flow of the economy). Furthermore, conservative politicians (and Democrats who support misnomered tort reform) fail to point out that class-action lawsuits, though only resulting in us getting two free pay-per-view movies, help keep the corporations in line. Thus, by arousing populist sentiments against a liberal, educated elite or in defense of one being wrongfully sued, a politican can both gain money for their campaign contributors (by making it harder for people to sue them) and raise their approval ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corp.#The_accident_itself

I could barely tell what you're saying, but I guess what you mean to say these frivolous lawsuits aren't so frivolous, because they keep greedy corporations in line. They will act more conscionably because they're afraid of lawsuits. I couldn't disagree more.

The reason, I think, that such lawsuits exist is because of the way US law and courts are structured. Anyone can sue anyone over anything, regardless of how ridiculous the claim, and even the threat of a lawsuit can be intimidating. As long as any kind of argument, no matter how dumb, is presented to a judge, he must hear the facts of the case. Civil judgement is based on a preponderance of evidence, not personal responsibility. As long as the plaintiff can prove the case in that capacity, he'll win. It doesn't matter if the woman was stupid enough to handle hot coffee in an irresponsible manner, because the coffee temp was above an industry standard (as if anyone knows, or cares, what the temperature of coffee should be). I don't think it's so much an activist judge problem but rather a systemic problem in the courts where the right argument can become persuasive above personal responsibility.

These judgements have been devastating for insurers particularly, and all businesses in general. They are forced to pass along their losses to their clients, who pay higher and higher premiums. Or, in the case of other businesses, their products price is increased to pass along the losses to the customer.

I know that in medicine, malpractice insurance has recently been going through the roof, especially for ob/gyns. In some states, there are almost no ob/gyns at all because the cost of malpractice insurance is higher than the cost of their practice! This is due to a loophole in the law that allows parents to sue the ob/gyn for any medical problems that arise in a child, up until the age of 18. This means that if your kid got run over by a truck at the age of 17, became a vegetable as a result, you could sue the ob that delivered him, claiming that he had some birth defect due to poor delivery that caused him to not be able to cross streets properly, thereby being hit by a truck.

These cases are opportunism at its worst, and what's more, remove personal responsibility. They force physicians to act more to avoid lawsuits rather than to actually treat patients properly. These days, for example, if you tell your patient to take a medication, and he doesn't, he can sue YOU later claiming that he didn't take the medication because you didn't emphasize its importance. You have to lead the patient by the hand, and call him days later and ask if he's taking the medication, and then write notes in his chart to verify of deny this.