During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.
Except she fucking wasn’t, you twat. Stop victim blaming.
Fuck you shithead. There are no victims in civil suits.
The woman who received serious burns from McDonald’s overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.
There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn’t a person so it’s not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.
Well actually there are some formats of a company that will be seen as a person from the perspective of the law
I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -
Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”
She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.
Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.
So she could have gotten out and she spilled it on herself.
Still her own fault.
Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.
Others have already very kindly explained how you’re completely, totally wrong, so I’ll just add:
Neener neener, you’re a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D
That’s true nobody likes, degenerate corporate bootlickers
Right. Her getting third degree burns means she wasn’t a victim.