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.
But, butt… if she spilled the coffee, then it’s on her for being clumsy… right? /s
they gave it to her without a lid when she ordered in the drive thru
Ouch… that’s an asshole move, they deserve the punitive damages.
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.)
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
Did you even read this link before you sent it?
Other than the parts I copied from it? Yeah, probably. You?
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.
That’s a funny way of saying that she sent over 90% of donations directly to the Vatican, instead of putting them towards hospice work. Sure, she didn’t “steal from her hospice”… the money didn’t even reach the hospice in the first place!
But hey, she managed to spare some change to fund monasteries over Europe, and followed Mahatma Gandhi’s steps in “no painkillers for thee, but all of them for me”.
Are you a ChatGPT bot comment?
Why is she in quotes?
Emphasis maybe?
Why are you “asking”…? (there, edited, hope that helps the tokenizer 🙄)
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.
“Assume good faith unless proven otherwise”… should be a rule. Anyways, we good now?
You /s but someone in this very same conversation posted a comment above basically saying the same thing.
Sort by “top”, they’ll be below… *sigh* there’s always gotta be a reason to require the /s, ain’t it?