[realtall]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

This case continues to be the poster child for the runaway jury verdict complainers. Here are just a few of the facts about that case that don't get publicized:

1. The woman received 3rd degree burns in her genital area.

2. McDonald's knew that the coffee was too hot, and that it would lead to injuries, but they weighed the potential injuries as inconsequential in relation to the marketing benefits they would receive (I've read their explanation for the temperature, and I don't remember it offhand right now, but the bottom line is, they received a benefit from keeping it that hot).

3. The woman offered to settle for much less, and asked for much less at trial. During litigation, McDonalds used strong-arm tactics and interfered with her ability to conduct discovery in the case, and its representatives acted so arrogant about the whole thing at trial that the jury became furious at the McDonald's people.

4. The punitive damages (the bulk of the award) equated to something like one week's profit from McDonald's coffee sales. Not as outrageous a penalty as the dollar amount seems when standing alone.

All of this is interesting but doesn't really change my opinion of the situation. I understand that the settlement doesn't really hurt McDonald's much. The way that I, and I think most people, think of it is 'what happened to this woman where she needs or deserves millions of dollars?'


And yes, I am familiar with the concept of punitive damages. But, as you just stated, the damages weren't very punitive in this case anyways.