Why would you quote what commentators said if you are claiming the raison d’être of the suit was that only McD served the coffee this hot? Because the commentators came in long after the suit was started. And the facts about how hot McD served their coffee likely came out in discovery, after suit was started.

What you need to defend your assertion that raison d’être of the suit was that only McD served the coffee this hot is the actual expert testimony. Not spin on the testimony, regardless of which side it comes from.

It seems to me that the raison d’être of the suit was that someone was badly burned and that McD was negligent in the way they served their coffee. I’m willing to bet, without looking up the suit again, that the hundreds of times that this happened to McD customers was discovered after suit was started.

I think you have exaggerated your arguments both by using the absolutist language “only” as well as claiming it to be the raison d’être.

So you mean legally sactioned sandbagging.

Nope, wrong again. Sandbagging is an act of deception.

The legislature’s removal of the requirement to state an amount of damages in a complaint was something that both tort reformers and trial attorneys wanted. That’s because (from the defense side) the high numbers were often picked up by newspapers to say that Widgets Inc. was sued for a bazillion dollars. That headline was unfair.

From the other side, trial attorneys didn’t like it because, at the time suit was brought, it was often impossible to determine the extent of the injury, thereby inviting high numbers to protect the client. It was (and is, where the concept remains) a stupid guessing game.

The removal of the ad damnum clause was sound public policy.

Ted:

You said the raison d’être of the Stella Liebeck suit was the false claim that only McDonald’s served beverages…

I’m relatively certain, without having reviewed the record, that there was no testimony that “only” McD served coffee at that temp. For that would require a canvassing of every establishment that served coffee.

You have overstated the argument, effectively creating a straw man. Since you called this the raison d’être of the suit, that represents a significant error in characterization.

Where there is potential to sell the notion that a preventable injury occurred to a jury, there is potential for the forth branch of government to turn a profit.

So you mean legally sactioned sandbagging.

A quick read of the Complaint, and it seems to have all the legal elements. Longer does not mean better. It says that Starbucks owned, operated and maintained the joint, that plaintiff was lawfully there and that Starbucks was negligent in a variety of ways and that plaintiff was injured. It even specifies many of the injuries, which many Complaints don’t do. You coud pick a nit and say that the Complaint doesn’t specifically allege any duty owed by Starbucks toward the plaintiff, but that is easily inferred and no judge would ever dismiss it on that ground.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the suit is good or not, I don’t really see what is missing from the Complaint with respect to the elements of stating a claim.