Republicans love theirs torts ... A Legal Myth Here's the real scoop on that infamous McDonald's coffee case: 79-year-old Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico was in the passenger seat of her grandson's stopped car when she was severely burned by spilled McDonald's coffee. Stella suffered 3rd-degree burns over 6% of her body, including her inner thighs, genitals, and buttocks. She was hospitalized for eight days, undergoing skin grafts. Stella, a Republican who had never filed a lawsuit in her life, didn't want to go to court. She offered to settle with McDonald's for the cost of her medical expenses, but the company refused - even after a mediator suggested they should settle. Once in court, it was revealed that McDonald's deliberately kept its coffee 20 degrees hotter than industry standards and was aware from 700 prior incidents that this practice could result in severe burns. The company decided not to reduce its temperature and not to warn its customers of any risk. In the end, McDonald's behavior outraged jury members who were skeptical of the case. Even the judge - who reduced the jury verdict by more than 80% - called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous, and willful. [Edit - %%*^ unicode code characters]
ok, I seriously doubt there is any correlation between political affiliation and the propensity to file lawsuits.
NW -- you're right..that's the REST of the story... the only part left out is that her damages were greatly reduced on appeal, if I remember correctly.
Even the judge - who reduced the jury verdict by more than 80% - called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous, and willful.
ahhh...was it the trial judge who did that??? or did it go up to an appellate court, and that's where damages were reduced??
in Texas they could enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict that alters the jury's decision. i've never seen them do it with damages...but that's not to say it couldn't happen, I don't think.
NW...what was the point in posting this? if it was a jab at repukes then i don't really get it because the article stated that she didn't want to take it to court and she just wanted her medical bills paid. did i miss something?
I'm somewhat leery of tort reform because the solution seems so obvious to me. Juries are made up of average citizens so the power is already there within society to reduce massive punitive damage awards. This just seems to be government limiting the power of juries rather than leaving it up to them.
I don't practice civil trial law, so I am a little rusty on all this. Max...can't a Texas trial judge order remittitur?
yes, but if he does, he has to clean it up. kidding yes, the trial court can order it...and so can the appellate courts, if they feel the trial court should have suggested it.
Damn straight (except for the Repukes part)! Did you notice: no celebrity lawyers, no activist actors, and no professional protestors... She took legal recourse when all other attempts failed.
It's an old school common law practice called remittur by which the judge can threaten to throw out the verdict in favor of a new trial or jnov or the plaintiff can accept a lowered amount - it's probably a state by state thing but I imagine most states have it, or at least had it at some point in some form. There's also another one called "additur" which is the opposite but IIRC that one is legally more controversial so it's not seen as much, I think.
