Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nothansff t1_iyafnyo wrote

Reply to comment by sharlayan in Woman sues Kraft for $5 million, saying Velveeta microwave mac and cheese takes longer to make than advertised by 08830

Warranted is probably an understatement too, because all she wanted was medical costs I believe... and McDonalds went full psycho ex, trying to burn her reputation to the ground and destroy her.

10

sharlayan t1_iyajin5 wrote

That's very true, all she wanted was payment for what was millions of dollars of medical debt and she got a smear campaign rallied against her for years

2

nothansff t1_iyalv2w wrote

> Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.

She asked for basically nothing from McDonald's, and underestimated her own damages probably just wanting to get it over with. It's like the extreme of the extreme both ways. Her barely wanting anything, and McDonald's doing their best movie villain monolouge.

7

humanesadness t1_iychy7m wrote

I mean the question really is, if you think a company should either a) be held liable for self inflicted damages (gun companies would hate this but also every sharp option will become a lot more expensive) or b) that companies should be able to get sued if they have food and drinks above a certain temperature even if their is no law about it. (Seems weird of it isnt illegal yet but is an understandable point of reference to take)

1

BridgeCrewFour t1_iydoyu6 wrote

Naw, they found that McDonald's had known about their coffee being too hot for 10 years before the lady (lots of burn complaints). Their own QA team said that the required temps were too hot to even drink without burning yourself. It's insane they never changed it before, and all things considered they got a slap on the wrist.

2

humanesadness t1_iychl0n wrote

The thing is i know all these facts. Yet i still think awarding damages for it is wrong. The almost boiling point of drinks is also not that weird and still served in other places. I dont think she was a bad person or looking for a payday. But i dont think mcdonalds should have been held liable. It seems very weird that this lawsuit worked but tabacco companies and oil companies still exist while they did purposely killed their consumers.

But I understand that this is a different philosophy than most americans have where personal responsibility is less important (look at fences, microwave instructions etc.)

−1

sharlayan t1_iycogj4 wrote

It was proven during the trial that if the coffee was even just 30 degrees cooler, she would have had exponentially more time to remove the pants that had covered her legs in the coffee. 190F is damn near boiling point, and McDonald's excuse that they wanted the coffee to be warm for a customer's trip was rendered moot by the fact that it was found most of them drank the coffee immediately. She was also far from the only one to have gotten hurt from their coffee. Her case was just the most severe.

She had 3 seconds before her skin was badly burnt. If the coffee was 160F like what many other places serve their coffee at, she could have had up to 20 seconds, which is a world of difference when you're trying to pull your pants down.

Oil companies and Tabacco companies don't actively set out to kill their customers, though neither does McDonald's. It's very understood that Tabacco causes many health problems, and people that smoke understand this. Its not expected that hot coffee is gonna scald your legs beyond recognition in 3 seconds because you spilled it on yourself.

2

humanesadness t1_iycwyx2 wrote

Tabacco companies lied to the public about the safety of their product. Oil companies lied to the public about the safety of theirs. Literally millions die because of those lies…

1

sharlayan t1_iyd0a5m wrote

And they are extremely heavily regulated as a result of this

1