Jury Idiocy Comes to Montana

[MTR]

How lucky for that family that they got the same jury that awarded that lady tons of $$$

because McDonalds failed to put a notice that their coffee is hot..!!!

The McDonald's case, despite being the poster child for over-litigiousness and runaway juries, was actually correctly decided.

McDonald's served its coffee at extremely hot temperatures, and it did so to reduce the number of refills that would be requested. Most people would leave the store before finishing (or even beginning) a single cup. McDonald's knew that people were being seriously burned by their coffee, but elected to continue to serve it excessively hot in order to increase profits. To compensate, they used lids that were very difficult to take off. The problem was that, when you did try to take the lid off (like the lady did in order to add cream), the cup would jerk violently, causing spills. The woman had no reason to expect that the coffee would be THAT hot, or that taking the lid off would lead to serious spillage.

It was not necessary for McDonald's to serve its coffee that hot. The decision was purely profit driven, and had nothing to do with the marketability of the product. As such, this is precisely the type of case for which punitive damages were conceived. When a company knowingly creates a dangerous situation in order to make extra money, a jury may take that money away (and then some) to discourage other businesses from making the same type of calculated decision.

I don't buy that.

Profit driven? Sort of the idea of being in business, isn't it? There are a lot of things many different companies do that are not NECESSARY, but they do it anyway if it will positively affect their profit margin. One of the most obvious involves what we are all doing right now, using software that the company (Microsoft, Apple or any other) selling it already has the next generation already coming out of it's beta mode.

Okay, so their coffee is hot. If you pick up a cup of coffee, tea or hot chocolate that feels too hot, what do you do?

This lady spilt the coffee while trying to remove the lid with the coffee cup between her legs. She was attempting to add sugar and cream.

She admitted she had read the warning on the cup (something that, at the time, only McDonalds did). She admitted she knew the coffee was hot.

In previous lawsuits brought against McDonalds, the courts dismissed them stating that people who caused the spill are accountable, not the "purveryor of the product". This is what prompted McDonalds to strengthen and and tighten the styrofoam coffee cups. The difference with this suit is that the jury found that the "hot coffee" was defective by being "too" hot even though McDonalds had offered an apparently uncontested claim that it is brewed to the high degree heat to bring out the maximum flavor at the recommendation of national coffee associations.

Personally, I cannot stand McDonald's food or their coffee. And yes, I also believe it is served too hot. I just believe that an individual is responsible for their owns actions, mistakes and stupidity.

I don't think there is any doubt that the McDonalds case was the epitome of a jury making a decision based upon sympathy instead of law. Apparently, the judge may have agreed the finding was a bit extreme and reduced the $2.86 million award by 84% to $450K.

[GSB]

Friggen stupid jury. I hope they can appeal. They must have shipped in the OJ jury.

[Skarp]

I don't buy that.

Profit driven? Sort of the idea of being in business, isn't it? There are a lot of things many different companies do that are not NECESSARY, but they do it anyway if it will positively affect their profit margin. One of the most obvious involves what we are all doing right now, using software that the company (Microsoft, Apple or any other) selling it already has the next generation already coming out of it's beta mode.

How outdated software applications is analogous to products known to injure people is a mystery to me. More apt would be the Ford Pinto example, where Ford knew that it had a problem with gas tanks that would rupture (and sometimes ignite) in mild rear-end collisions, had a relatively cheap retrofit option (a rubber bladder or some such costing less than $20), but decided to let the car go out as-is because a) they wanted to keep the price point under $5,000 to enhance sales, and b) they figured that the cost of retrofitting would be more than the cost of paying for eventual injuries. It was a calculated business decision that led to the death or disfigurement of many people.

This is a much different situation than producing products that are simply less safe than other products. Obviously the Chevy Cavalier is less safe than a Lexus, and that is fine...people should be able to choose to sacrifice some safety for affordability. But selling a car that provides less protection in a crash than some other car is much different than selling a car that is defective and unsafe by any reasonable measure. Particularly when the nature of the defect is unknown to the consumer.

In the case of McDonald's coffee, it was served ridiculously hot. I remember trying to drink it like 30 minutes after buying it and still scalding my tongue. I remember wondering why in the hell they sold it so hot. They did it to discourage refills (if you buy their "bring out the maximum flavor" story, I've got a bridge to sell you). Of course they could have simply said "no refills," but doing that has negative business impacts. They also could have started serving their coffee at a more reasonable temperature--like simply hot, rather than 185 degrees, like every other establishment does--when they learned that people were being seriously burned. They did neither.

Coffee served at 185 degrees is knowingly defective. Nobody serves coffee that hot. Nobody would expect to be served coffee that hot. In fact, I once spilled a full cup of Starbuck's coffee all over my leg and, while definitely painful, it did no lasting damage. 185 degree liquid is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns--i.e., serious, permanent, irreparable damage. Which is exactly what happened to the lady in the case.

McDonald's was a bad actor, and it got off cheap.

Here's a fuller synopsis of the story:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[kingskid]

If you get 15 speeding tickets then you go and hit a car while speeding and injured someone watch the DA file charges against you. As you had been warned. McDonalds had been written up several times about there coffee being to hot. THAT is the point they knew it would burn and continued serving it. That is what the jury found. LS had not been warned in fact they met all standards and tested on there own to comply with the regulations. A BIG difference.

[Skarp]

You are dead to me. I have no son

Hold on there, Jeremiah. The key to good decision (and policy) making is the consistent application of correct principles. Tort reform is the one area in which conservatives get hysterical over extreme examples and want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, just like liberals do with virtually everything else.

In all other areas, conservatives are careful to properly align incentives, in consideration of human nature, to achieve good outcomes. They are also reliably true to the principle that the benefits and costs of any activity should accrue to the party engaged in that activity. In the case of tort reform (i.e., capping liability), conservatives are incentivizing companies to externalize costs on to others. And businesses being what they are, that is exactly what they will do. With capped liability, it makes perfect sense for Ford to not retrofit the Pinto...and the costs of them not doing so are then externalized on their unwitting customers.

In court, the monetary benefit of willful egregious acts can generally be calculated. In order to disincentivize such acts, juries must be able to take away not only the amount benefited, but an additional amount above that. Otherwise the worst that a company can do by engaging in financially rewarding bad conduct is break even, which still makes it an attractive option. So while people tend to focus on huge awards given to individual plaintiffs, the correct thing to focus on is the amount of benefit received by the company by engaging in the bad conduct that ultimately injured the plaintiff. That is the essence and purpose of punitive damages.

Moreover, courts are not without the ability to revise excessive awards downward, and they often do so (sometimes by too much, as with the McDonald's case).

My only problem is with the way in which such cases are often presented--pulling on juror heart-strings rather than presenting hard financial data. Like John Edwards channeling dead loved ones and whatnot. I can see room for rules governing that sort of nonsense, but not for capping liability.

[THE MAD-DOG99]

Sorry Skarp, don't want you to lose Dad...Maybe these are better examples...?

The Frivolous Lawsuit Cases
1. The television show "Jackass" is being sued by a Montana man for plagiarizing his name, copyright and trademark infringement and defamation of character as well. In 1997, this Montana man legally changed his name to Jack Ass in order to raise public awareness about the perils of drunken driving. Mr. Jack Ass is seeking $10 million in damages.
2. A former Houston ambulance driver stopped for doughnuts while taking an injured youth to Ben Taub Hospital. The youth's mother filed a complaint against the driver and the driver is suing the city for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.
4. Barney the Dinosaur sues the San Diego Chicken. The San Diego Chicken is a sports stadium mascot who, while doing a routine, pummeled a Barney look-alike. The judge threw out the case saying that the act was clearly parody and would not cause trademark confusion.
5. A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."
6. A California couple sued Bally Health Club for loss of consortium and emotional distress for a cyberspace romance on the man's part. Apparently, the man cut his hand on the towel dispenser at the health club sending him home for a few days where he decided to roam in an online romance.
7. A man is suing the Utah State Prison, saying the prison is violating his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with a "vampire" diet. The man also filed a complaint that he was denied a conjugal visit with his "vampress" and denied to right to the sacrament of drinking blood.
8. In a "liar, liar no pants on fire case", a California nudist sued an event organizer when he burned his feet while doing a fire walk, after being told the activity may be dangerous.

[Skarp]

Sorry Skarp, don't want you to lose Dad...Maybe these are better examples...?

The Frivolous Lawsuit Cases
1. The television show "Jackass" is being sued by a Montana man for plagiarizing his name, copyright and trademark infringement and defamation of character as well. In 1997, this Montana man legally changed his name to Jack Ass in order to raise public awareness about the perils of drunken driving. Mr. Jack Ass is seeking $10 million in damages.
2. A former Houston ambulance driver stopped for doughnuts while taking an injured youth to Ben Taub Hospital. The youth's mother filed a complaint against the driver and the driver is suing the city for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. A woman who attended 'Halloween Horror Nights' at Universal Studios is suing for $15,000 in damages for extreme fear, emotional distress and mental anguish.
4. Barney the Dinosaur sues the San Diego Chicken. The San Diego Chicken is a sports stadium mascot who, while doing a routine, pummeled a Barney look-alike. The judge threw out the case saying that the act was clearly parody and would not cause trademark confusion.
5. A New York City woman was awarded $14.1 million by a state supreme court jury after she was hit by a subway train as she was patiently laying on the tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. Later, the reward was cut 30 percent, to a mere $9.9 million, because of her "comparative negligence."
6. A California couple sued Bally Health Club for loss of consortium and emotional distress for a cyberspace romance on the man's part. Apparently, the man cut his hand on the towel dispenser at the health club sending him home for a few days where he decided to roam in an online romance.
7. A man is suing the Utah State Prison, saying the prison is violating his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with a "vampire" diet. The man also filed a complaint that he was denied a conjugal visit with his "vampress" and denied to right to the sacrament of drinking blood.
8. In a "liar, liar no pants on fire case", a California nudist sued an event organizer when he burned his feet while doing a fire walk, after being told the activity may be dangerous.

People sue for all sorts of nonsensical reasons. The vast majority of those frivolous lawsuits are booted from court at the first opportunity.

And yes, sometimes juries make bad decisions (such as their fault determination in your attempted suicide example above), and sometimes the checks available in the court system do not work effectively. There are boneheaded judges too. But for every wacky example you cite, I can cite hundreds in which the system operated reasonably well. The alternative is virtually guarantying that companies (and doctors, etc.) will cut corners and knowingly do things to endanger people, because they will have been financially incentivized to do so.

The best we can do is align incentives correctly and attempt to mitigate abuses. Misalign incentives and you're buying a raft of bad consequences. Just like a good liberal.

[jtat32]

I'm surprised that this crowd is so overwhelmingly sympathetic to the bat manufacturer in this discussion. I don't know enough about this particular case to form an opinion either way, but consider this:

If your daughter was killed or seriously injured by a ball off a bat that you know had been rolled or shaved, how many of you would let that slide? Those modifications have < 10% effect on exit speed. Bat technology has added much more than that in recent years, and in softball at least, manufacturers seem to be dialing that down. We've all seen what young girls can do with their top of the line bats, with relatively slow pitching, and large, lower compression balls. The young man who was killed was an 18 y/o pitcher - imagine the exit speed that could be generated with a high-end bat on a 95 MPH baseball. Is a bat with Rocketech-like performance characteristics really safe under those conditions? Who is ultimately responsible for making the determination about safety? Do you really fully trust ASA in this regard? Manufacturers? How about your local rec league?

If we're honest with ourselves here, our DDs are out there because we think that they're relatively safe, and we think that they're relatively safe because we think (but don't know) that there is competent and thorough oversight that has determined that it is. Let's hope that nothing happens that causes us to change that perception in the way it has changed for the family that brought this lawsuit.

[GIMNEPIWO]

People sue for all sorts of nonsensical reasons. The vast majority of those frivolous lawsuits are booted from court at the first opportunity.

I recently heard that someone I know was going to sue in a 'fender bender' that her son was in ... Stating that because of his injuries ( non existent or made up ) he is unable to work ... this fine young man is 19, just barely graduated HS last June, has 2 kids 3 & 1 by the same girl and the whole bunch is somehow on welfare and food stamps while living in their parents homes .... but the kicker is that he is a lazy POS and has never had any job anyway because they say he is ADD ... I hope this is one that gets booted

At a NSA Umpires Clinic last Winter, it was discussed that if an injury happens on the field as a result of a batted ball ... that the Umpire should immediately confiscate the bat & ball ...

[Blind Squirrel]

I am ultimately responsible for my kid's safety. In the overwhelming majority of cases of my kid getting hurt, it is not the fault of any manufacturer of a product that I allow my kid to use in an activity that I allow them to engage in. My reflex is not to go looking for a third party to blame. Of course if the product is, unbeknownst to me, defective or has been altered after leaving the manufacturer, then that may or may not be a different story.

My kid is playing less because of any confidence I may have in other parties and far more because of reality. How often are kids hurt when engaged in the same activity? I allow my kid to do things that recent history suggests to me are safe enough to let them. I guess that kind of radical thinking makes me freaking Einstein. If a parent believes that bat technology or anything else makes FP too unsafe, then why the Hell are they allowing their kid to play?

S**T happens. It doesn't need to be someone's fault in every case. Whose fault is it if I slip in the shower later today, hit my head and die? If my kid gets injured in a freak accident on a playing field that doesn't occur 99.99% of the time, I'm not looking to blame someone to make myself feel better or feel less guilt about letting my kid engage in that activity. Accidents occur and IMO, they should be viewed in the context implied by the use of that term.

Is there a single parent who is unaware of the risks involved when kids are swinging bats and balls are flying through the air? These people 100% knew the risks associated with the activity. They let their kid play. That was their choice. But when something went wrong, they apparently felt the need to blame someone else. Beyond the sympathy I feel for any parent who loses a child, I feel no sympathy for them. In fact, IMO they are AssHats for taking legal action against others in a pathetic attempt to make themselves feel better.

John