McDonald’s is being sued over a hot coffee spill, again.

This time, a San Francisco location is being accused of serving a “scalding” cup of coffee with an improperly attached lid, which allegedly resulted in the coffee pouring out on plaintiff Mable Childress’ body and causing “severe burns” after she tried drinking it.

The lawsuit, filed last week, alleged that the elderly woman is suffering from “physical pains, emotional distress and other damages.” The restaurant’s negligence was a “substantial factor” for her injuries, it alleged.

Childress also said in the lawsuit that the restaurant employees “refused” to help her, a point that the McDonald’s denied.

    • Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      124
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Beat me to it. I remember as a teenager hearing adults laugh about this, “how could you not know coffee is hot?? Hahaha”. Holy shit the McDonalds PR really fucked that lady over. It wasn’t until at least a decade later that I learned the reality of the situation and how horrific her burns were.

      Fuck McDonalds.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Jay Leno did the most to further that hit job. He spent months spreading lies, all while McDonald’s became a major sponsor of his show.

    • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      99
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just want to add that this wasn’t just McDonald’s spinning it for their own purposes, it was part of a larger effort of tort reform - spreading the conception that people are suing for everything, even hot coffee hur dur, so that the public would support things like caps on pain and suffering damages and punitive damages. Corporations wanted more leeway to maximize profits(the reason McDonald’s coffee was so hot was because they could get more coffee out of the beans that way), even if it hurt people, and the public jumped right on board. This was part of the same strategy as denigrating plaintiffs attorneys as “ambulance chasers” and the like. It got to the point that even when people were harmed, they still wouldn’t sue because they didn’t want to be lumped in with “those entitled people suing over everything”. It became a point of pride to get fucked over by corporations and to do nothing about it. Really disgusting how easily the public was manipulated by all that.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What I don’t understand is how she was appealed down to $480K, but the family in FL got $800K for not warning that the nuggets were fresh out of the fryer. The former was way, way, worse.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s nuts is that she originally only asked for like $32k to cover the cost of the fucking skin grafts she needed.

      • CaptFeather@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only thing I can think of is maybe the '91 case wasn’t adjusted for inflation? That would make it a little over 1 mil today

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just corrected someone about that last month who was using it as complaint about society. They had no idea about the details.