Website review: Public Citizen | Legal Myths: The M...
SchreiberBike discovered this in Law
•7 reviews since Oct 31, 2006
law
•citizen.org/print_article.cfm
People who like this website
- above
San Diego
- missliz313
Mountain View
- Robear
Tempe
- kcharris77
ROY
- agruca
Colorado Springs
- nicjoy80
Denver
- DJNazzy
White Rock
- mspetry
Texas
- Quirozom
Monterrey
- jhlaw
Oklahoma City
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
- It-slaps-me rated 14 months ago
- From the page: "In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonaldâ€s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks. This infamous case[1]has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and, in an instant, the media and legal communities were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as â€oeHot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million,”[2]or â€oeCoffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million”[3]painted the picture of a â€oerunaway jury,” an unreasonable award and a perverted system
stt3 rated 14 months ago- I'm all for tort reform, but this page has some interesting background on this famous case, much of which I did not know.
- trixmix rated 20 months ago
- Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case
In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
This infamous case has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and, in an instant, the media and legal communities were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as "Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million,"or "Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million" painted the picture of a "runaway jury," an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers' legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a "legal myth," a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers. - Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case
- Jaelen rated 20 months ago
- Finally, finally, finally. An intelligent, balanced summary of the "Old Lady sues McDonalds for millions after burning herself with hot coffee" case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. I'm not saying that tort reform isn't necessary. It really is. But please, get your facts straight before running around screaming that the legal system is falling. "The Stella Awards," I'm looking at you.
- nicky187 rated 20 months ago
- As usual, popular "wisdom" is wrong. The award wasn't out of line. I find the aspects of the corporation not wanting to settle for far less than the ultimate outcome to be the interesting part. Reminiscent of how Ford Motor Company did cost projections on the Pinto.
- GiuseppeFargo rated 20 months ago
- Yes we have all heard this story. And I admit I was in the group thinking that this settlement was insane. But after reading this...and if the facts are true...well then I would have to change my view a bit. Granted I still think the award was out of line, but it isn't nearly as outrageous as I first thought. Just my two cents...
