Today's Consumerist article about a couple suing Dunkin Donuts after a hash brown burned their toddler was a real eye-roller. But I did learn that the McDonald's scalding coffee lawsuit, that I used to think was also an eyeroller, really wasn't frivolous at all. As in third degree burns to her legs and genitals, requiring an eight day hospitalization and multiple skin grafts. This was after hundreds of people had already been burned and this particular McDonald's had been warned by corporate to turn the coffee temperature down. You can check out the full background of the McDonald's case here.
And here is a precious video of a spazzy newborn baby elephant:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To be fair, PC, the coffee one was a bit of a frivolous lawsuit. It's a hot beverage. It's a very hot beverage. It's coffee. She was holding the cup between her legs while she was driving. That's simply not bright. There does need to be some personal responsibility.
That said, McD's really mishandled it. They could have offered a moderate settlement with some nice apologies, and it would have gone away.
Hm. This got me thinking, jdub, just what causes a lawsuit to be deemed frivolous? Is it that the company couldn't have reasonably prevented the injury, or that potential injury is an acceptable risk all people must take if they want to enjoy coffee?
I don't disagree about personal responsibility, but if this article was correct, she was the passenger, not the driver, so this image I had of someone driving with their knees while putting sugar in the coffee was not accurate. If this information is correct, many others had received similar burns, corporate had warned the location to turn the coffee temp down, and her injuries were quite extensive, much more so than I originally understood.
And I agree, they handled it terribly.
Post a Comment