During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

  • reverendsteveii
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they’re absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I’ve often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he’s a big “gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits” guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I’m a big “frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights” guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like “Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?” Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was “suing them for giving her what she asked for”, the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      And she only asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills. It was the jury who threw out her request and instead punished McDonalds with the huge settlement, because they were horrified by how grossly negligent the company had been and decided her request wasn’t a strong enough punishment.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald’s knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren’t to because of medical costs, but we’re punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn’t happen though. McDonald’s had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But, butt… if she spilled the coffee, then it’s on her for being clumsy… right? /s

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that someone actually was dumb enough to sue over coffee being hot was a punchline in the 90s and 2000s. It’s amazing what kind of misinformation can run amok in a world where you don’t have easy access to the internet and whatever corporate wants the spin to be, that’s what every Outlet is going to tell you.

            Thankfully proper research has revealed that news groups were strong armed by McDonald’s into leaving important details out to save their stock prices… and this version of the story is the one that’s catching on.

            I certainly hope that a better research clears up other misunderstandings ( the amount of people who actually believe Mother Teresa was a sadistic serial killer thanks to Christopher Hitchens riding the New Atheist wave of the early 2000’s with his easily debunked Hell’s Angel book is… way too high. The book claims among other things that she ran sham hospitals when in fact she ran hospices long before the concept was a thing in mainstream medicine and is credited for pioneering the concept of palliative care.)

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you want to defend Saint Teresa of Calcutta and how she funneled charity money to the Vatican while being unable to afford analgesics in her hospices, calling pain “Jesus’s kisses”, or defending child molesters and getting an exorcism to heal her heart attack while opposing both abortion and contraception, then you shouldn’t encourage people to do better research… which they can start with at:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

                  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I did, it seems like you skipped most of the article and jump straight into criticisms, most of which have been largely debunked. There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are you “asking”…? (there, edited, hope that helps the tokenizer 🙄)

          • reverendsteveii
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            because I’d “like” to “know”. Some people use them to communicate dubiousness, some people use them to indicate they’re actually quoting someone, some “people” use them for emphasis.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Assume good faith unless proven otherwise”… should be a rule. Anyways, we good now?

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You /s but someone in this very same conversation posted a comment above basically saying the same thing.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sort by “top”, they’ll be below… *sigh* there’s always gotta be a reason to require the /s, ain’t it?

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I once worked in a chain and spilled fresh brewed coffee on my arm. Looks half a pot. Got second degree burns.

      Company paid for my ER visit, naturally. No way in hell was our coffee as hot as McD’s, by a long shot. And I we still in pain for weeks.