I think you need more than 700 complaints out of millions to prove that excessive heat is an issue at a corporate level at McDonald’s. If one considers that McDonald’s has ten thousand restaurants with many being franchisees they would then have to consider if these excessive temperatures were not simply the errors of managers. If the excessive temperatures were truly the fault of corporate malfeasance would we not see tens of thousands of complaints????

McDonald’s employees teenagers, retirees, and people on the fringe of society.They generally do not attract top notch workers. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that employee incompetence is responsible for the excessive heat.

Corporations are easy targets. They are faceless, amoral, entities that have a legacy of being indifferent and even hostile to rights of workers and customers. But then we must remember that individuals and lawyers have equally lengthy track records of being dishonest gold diggers who will use the prejudices of the people against corporations to make money.It is all just a game. The use of the word “justice” is a cynical ploy by trial lawyers to win anti-corporation fanatics over to their side. (These same people think that big government–an even more powerful faceless entity with a track record of human rights abuse much longer than that of corporations–is a good thing.)

We are all just pawns on a chess board, being moved to and fro by two groups battling for control of power in this country.

If the case McDonald’s, argued that everyone knows coffee is hot, but this fell apart when they admitted that almost no one knew it was so hot it could use third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. McDonald’s then also admitted that their coffee was not safe for human consumption at sale. They admitted that their product was not safe, which they already knew from 700 other incidents with many having third degree burns.

After the case, McDonald’s reduced the coffee’s temperature by about 40 degrees. They would not change it, from just being told there was a problem. It was not until after being sued that they made their product safe, so others won’t be horribly deformed later on.

I suspect Mr. Duncan has not review the fantastic day-care center cases or the thousands of repressed memories cases. Literally million of cups of coffee are sold every year. Mr. Duncan is telling us that mcDonalds would serve the coffee in cups with low melting points. Imbecile applies to that level of reasoning.

The jurors that heard the case had a transcript. Ms Steibeck was only asking for payment of money for what her Medicare could not pay for. An Amount of $20,000. McDonald’s didn’t want to pay what it it was responsible for, which was to simply pay for the injury caused by the plastic cup that broke apart in her lap due to the temperature of the coffee in the cup eroded the integrity of the plastic material. The structural integrity of the cups themselves could not sustain those those high temperatures adequately. McDonalds knew this, or should have after the 700+ complaints about it already. Because of their neglect in pursuing a solution the jury of people unrelated and unknown to the victim decided that McDonald’s egregious behavior and negligence should be punished enough to get their attention. It wasn’t Ms Steibeck’s goal to achieve a penalty anywhere near what the jury decided. The jury awarded an amount THEY saw for such corporate irresponsibility. It was one 2 days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds at that time. Stop blaming the victim. Blame the corporate fool who decided not to settle for the medical cost.

True. But only one side owns the media.

Walter, critics of the McDonald’s case wouldn’t have to speculate on critical points if they had ever been interested in obtaining the trial transcript themselves. It’s never been confidential. But I guess their failure to do so has given them a good excuse for continuing their speculation.

If Ms Steibeck was in a dead-still parked car, then spilling a whole cup of coffee seems quite unlikely. If she was fiddling with her coffee while the car was being parked, then there would be accelerations and decellerations consistent with tipping a cup of coffee.

One aspect of the case that was weighty to me is the cost of her care at the hospital. I believe the shock of her bill moved Ms. Steibeck to seeking help from McDonalds.

Also, Walter, I’m not sure you can drive by this argument without stopping. Should we peel this onion even a bit?

I love this: almost “almost universal acceptance” stuff. You have multiple tautologies going in the same sentence. That’s a feat.

I can prove your wrong because (1) I’m certain you are wrong, (2) my friend said you were wrong and (3) I read somewhere that you are totally wrong. Given all of this, how can we even argue about this?