The Court Of Public Opinion

In one of the most widely misreported and misunderstood cases in recent memory, a Albuquerque, New Mexico jury awarded 79 year-old Stella Liebeck $2.9 million for severe burns suffered after she spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee, which she had placed between her knees.

The jury’s award was for $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million for punitive damages (because of McDonald’s callous conduct). The jury also found Mrs. Liebeck 20% negligent, reducing the compensatory damages to $160,000. The trial judge also reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Mrs. Liebeck did not receive $2.9 million, or $2.86 million, or $740,000. The parties entered a post-verdict settlement for a undisclosed amount.

(States have different legal standards with respect to negligence. New Mexico uses a comparative negligence rule, which assigns blame and, therefore, judgments proportionally. Other states such as North Carolina use a contributory negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if their actions contributed even 1% to the accident!)

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Mrs. Liebeck, while a passenger in her grandson’s car, purchased a cup of coffee at the drive-thru window at McDonalds. While the car was stopped, she placed the cup securely between her knees and attempted to remove the lid. The cup accidentally tipped over and poured the scalding (180-190? Fahrenheit) hot water onto her lap.

She suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body. During her eight day hospitalization she underwent skin grafting and painful whirlpool treatment for debridement (removal of damaged tissue) of her wounds. She has extensive scarring and was disabled for more than two years.

Despite these very painful and debilitating injuries and their expensive medical treatment, Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000.

McDonald’s refused to settle and the case went to trial.

FACTS PRESENTED AT TRAIL

The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

? McDonalds’s coffee sales are $1.3 million per day.

? By corporate specifications, McDonald’s sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds; Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

? The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

? McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

? From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

? Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

? At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

? Witnesses for McDonald’s admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature;

? McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

? McDonald’s witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat — As one witness put it: No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we’re using in that regard right now;

? McDonald’s admitted that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

? Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

? Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior callous. Moreover, the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald’s in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that, the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.

By Wayne C Walker, President of Capital Transaction Group Inc. a leader in litigation financial services ? www.captran.com.

This information is opinion and not intended to be legal advice. Readers should not act on this information without seeking the advice of a competent attorney. ? 2003 CapTran

By Wayne C Walker, President of Capital Transaction Group Inc. a leader in litigation financial services ? http://www.captran.com.

In one of the most widely misreported and misunderstood cases in recent memory, a Albuquerque, New Mexico jury awarded 79 year-old Stella Liebeck $2.9 million for severe burns suffered after she spilled a cup of McDonald’s coffee, which she had placed between her knees.

The jury’s award was for $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million for punitive damages (because of McDonald’s callous conduct). The jury also found Mrs. Liebeck 20% negligent, reducing the compensatory damages to $160,000. The trial judge also reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Mrs. Liebeck did not receive $2.9 million, or $2.86 million, or $740,000. The parties entered a post-verdict settlement for a undisclosed amount.

(States have different legal standards with respect to negligence. New Mexico uses a comparative negligence rule, which assigns blame and, therefore, judgments proportionally. Other states such as North Carolina use a contributory negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if their actions contributed even 1% to the accident!)

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Mrs. Liebeck, while a passenger in her grandson’s car, purchased a cup of coffee at the drive-thru window at McDonalds. While the car was stopped, she placed the cup securely between her knees and attempted to remove the lid. The cup accidentally tipped over and poured the scalding (180-190 Fahrenheit) hot water onto her lap.

She suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body. During her eight day hospitalization she underwent skin grafting and painful whirlpool treatment for debridement (removal of damaged tissue) of her wounds. She has extensive scarring and was disabled for more than two years.

Despite these very painful and debilitating injuries and their expensive medical treatment, Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000.

McDonald’s refused to settle and the case went to trial.

FACTS PRESENTED AT TRAIL

The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

McDonalds’s coffee sales are $1.3 million per day.

By corporate specifications, McDonald’s sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds; Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

Witnesses for McDonald’s admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature;

McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

McDonald’s witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat — As one witness put it: No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we’re using in that regard right now;

McDonald’s admitted that its coffee is not fit for consumption when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior callous. Moreover, the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald’s in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that, the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.

By Wayne C Walker, President of Capital Transaction Group Inc. a leader in litigation financial services www.captran.com.

This information is opinion and not intended to be legal advice. Readers should not act on this information without seeking the advice of a competent attorney. 2003 CapTran

More articles at article database

In the past, the rule of the day was buyer beware. It was up to consumers to inform and protect themselves from irresponsible companies and dangerous products. Current law, however, is just the opposite. Now companies are legally required to provide reasonably safe products. If companies produce dangerous or defective products, consumers can sue them for the injuries suffered as a result. Strict product liability makes everyone in the production process, from component manufacturers to distributors, responsible for the safety of the product. This makes safe products a priority for both consumers and producers, which should be the ideal situation.

However, the mere existence of this law has not completely protected consumers from dangerous products. Often companies are not careful and let defective products slip through the production line, or they compromise the safety of their product to reduce costs. Defective products reach the shelves every day, where they can hurt consumers. When these products injure you, it is important to find a lawyer and pursue the company, both to claim the repayment you deserve and to protect other consumers from the defective product.

A product does not even have to be defective for its manufacturer to be liable under product liability law. If a product is merely unsafe to consumers, every company affiliated with the production, distribution, and retail of that product can be held responsible. There are four different ways to legally establish product liability for defective or dangerous products: negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and strict liability.

A company is considered negligent when it is responsible for providing a standard of safety and does not do so. This includes inaction as well as careless and intentionally dangerous practices. Breach of warranty occurs when a product fails to carry out the claims of a seller. Companies are obligated to fulfill any promises made to customers. Misrepresentation refers to the expectations consumers hold from a products advertising and promotion. If consumers are lead to believe, through advertising, that a product is safer than it really is, the product has been misrepresented. Finally, strict liability assigns the responsibility for safety to every step of the production and distribution process. If a product is defective and the defect injures a consumer, the company is strictly liable and responsible for the injury regardless of fault or intent.

A person only has three years to bring an action from the time they become aware of the loss, the defect, and the manufacturer. Any action that is taken has to happen within ten years of the time the goods were supplied. This creates a limited window for consumers to protect their interests, claim repayment from irresponsible companies, and establish justice for dangerous business practices. This area of law is very complicated and if you feel that you have been hurt or injured by any product you should contact a lawyer right away. An attorney will review your case and tell you from experience what you could expect from pursuing a lawsuit.

More articles at articles database

An automobile accident can be a frightening and upsetting experience. Nevertheless, there are certain steps that you should take to comply with the law and preserve your legal rights.

First, Florida law requires you to stop and exchange information with the other people involved in the accident. You should obtain the following information for everyone involved in the accident: name, address, telephone number, driver’s license number, vehicle license number, and insurance information. Try to learn as much as possible about the other driver’s insurance, including the name of the company, the policy number, the extent of coverage, and the name of the agent.

Get the name, address, and telephone number of all people who witnessed the accident. You probably will want to contact them later if there is a dispute as to how the accident happened.

You should make an initial assessment of any personal injuries and property damage resulting from the accident while you are still at the scene. Make a written record of these observations.

Above all, try to remain calm. It generally is advisable not to discuss liability at the scene of the accident, even though it may be tempting to do so in the heat of the moment. Because the issue of liability can be complicated, you should discuss the accident with an attorney before you admit it was your fault.

The police generally do not come to the scene of an accident or make a report unless someone is seriously injured or there is damage to public property. The people involved in the accident, however, are required to file a report of the accident (called an SR-1) with the Department of Motor Vehicles if the accident involves more than $750.00 of property damage or any personal injuries. If the SR-1 report is filed, all parties to the accident will be required to provide proof of insurance. If you were uninsured on the date of the accident, your driver’s license will be suspended for one year.

If you plan to make a claim with your insurance company, you should contact your agent as soon as possible. You also should obtain two or three written estimates for the repair of any damage to your vehicle.

If you are injured, you should seek medical attention immediately. Keep the receipts for all medical treatment, including medications, and maintain a record of all losses you sustain as a result of your injuries (e.g., lost wages).

——————————————————————————–

The information contained in this article is of a general nature. If you have a similar problem, you should consult with an attorney. Accident victims and/or friends are encouraged to call THE LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN ZIEGLER to make an appointment (305)793-3088. Appointment hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and we are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

More articles at articles database

Professional Negligence claims compensation for errors or wrongful advice

If you have been the victim of poor or negligent advice received from a professional you may be able to reclaim losses and compensation by instructing a specialist solicitor to handle your case.

Despite rigid qualification criteria and tight regulation, even the most experienced of professionals can occasionally make a mistake. You are owed a duty of care by any professional who you engage to conduct specialist services and you have the right to complain and possibly commence legal action against anyone not fulfilling their obligations.

You cannot claim for advice that you are merely dissatisfied with but which might be entirely appropriate. You cannot claim in circumstances where you are unhappy with the attitude of the professional. These generally speaking are customer service problems and not subject to professional negligence criteria.

In order to make a claim against an accountant, architect, solicitor, surveyor or other specialist, you need to establish that a loss was sustained by you and that this can be quantified.

If you feel that you may have a case then you need to contact a compensation lawyer who specialises in claims against professionals who wrongly advise their clients.

If you have suffered loss or damage, please make an enquiry with us today. Call FREE on 0800 0322210.

In order to succeed in a professional negligence claim you have to prove 3 things:

1) That the professional owed you a duty of care.

This is usually not difficult if you have engaged the professional to provide a service for you, because you will probably have a contract with the professional. All providers of a service under contract have a duty to provide the service with due skill and diligence and where the time isnt specified within a reasonable time.

2) That the professional has breached that duty of care

You have to prove that the standard of work provided by the professional is worse than that you should expect from a reasonable professional working in the circumstances of your case.

30 That the breach of duty of care has caused you loss that can be quantified

This is often the hardest part to prove. You have to show that you are worse off than you would have been had the professional provided the service with due skill and diligence

We have a team of dedicated professional negligence claims specialist lawyers who can advise you on your prospects of taking legal action against the party or parties who provided the bad advice.

More articles at database for articles