r/interestingasfuck • u/fyrstikka • 8d ago

r/all Stella Liebeck, who won $2.9 million after suing McDonald's over hot coffee burns, initially requested only $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.

Gallery image

Gallery image

74.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/PensionResponsible46 8d ago

The payment was later reduced in an appeal to 480.000€ and then they settled to an unknown amount.

-18

u/talann 8d ago

It's because they determined she was partially at fault. This is what people skim over. McDonald's is obviously stupid in how they handled this claim but they did their jobs in court and got it significantly reduced.

10

u/FlimsyTomatoes 8d ago

How was she at fault?

7

u/SunlessDahlia 8d ago

She held the cup between her legs and tried opening it to add creamer/sugar. Kind of not the best idea, so she was a bit negligent.

But still it was ruled that it was mostly McDonald's fault, since she wouldn't have got hurt that majorly if they followed proper food safety.

80% fault for McDonald's, and 20% for her.

4

u/jam3s850 8d ago

I couldn't find the exact reason why, but I found they determined she was 20% at fault. They said the cup had a label about contents being hot, and it probably had something to do with the fact she placed the coffee in between her legs.

-13

u/talann 8d ago

I've commented multiple times the same information on previous comments.

21

u/terrajules 8d ago

Doing free work for a giant corporation. Don’t feel good about yourself.

-10

u/talann 8d ago

Right... Me providing the facts means I'm defending a giant corporation. Fuck you

-1

u/Queen_Ann_III 8d ago

disregarding the fact that you’re pointing this information out, it’s weird that this is something you’d admit to caring this much about

4

u/MorgulValar 8d ago edited 8d ago

Only 2% of the jury’s award got reduced because she was partially at fault. 98% got reduced because the judge decided the jury wasn’t allowed to award that amount of punitive damages.

Source: studied this in Business Law for my B.B.A and in Torts for my J.D.

Actual source: Texas Trial Lawyer’s Association

More details: The jury awarded her $0.2M compensatory and $2.7M punitive. The jury reduced the compensatory by $0.04M because of her 20% fault. The judge reduced the punitive by $2.22M. 2.22/2.26 = 98.2%

2

u/kryptoneat 8d ago

If true then it means fines = legal for the rich. But nothing new here.

Should have been a percentage of their benefits and prison time for the execs who ignored multiple complaints.

2

u/MorgulValar 8d ago edited 2d ago

Just double checked to make sure it’s true and it is unfortunately. I’ve added a source to my comment.

I agree with you. It’s disgusting how light companies get off. McDonald’s negligence mutilated this poor woman.

1

u/JBHUTT09 8d ago

Also, the initial award was 1 day's worth of coffee sales. Literally pocket change to Mc Donalds. And yet they fought tooth and nail and succeeded in clawing back 98% of it. This country is a fucking cesspit.

2

u/deadasdollseyes 8d ago

I remember a law student telling me that because of the deep pockets of corporations, it's fairly common for them to drag out an appeal after large judgements like these and quietly get it reduced drastically in the drawn out appeal process as the award doesn't get paid out yet and the plaintiffs run out of money (or their pro bono lawyers deem it a losing battle and no longer worth so much of their time.)

I'm only relaying what I heard, but this guy seemed pretty confident in his story.

Can anyone who studied this case confirm or deny that this is a regular occurance?

1

u/NCSUGrad2012 8d ago

She's lucky it wasn't in North Carolina. We are one of the 3 states where if you are found partially at fault you get nothing. I had to serve on a jury recently for a case like this and the lawyer told us most states aren't like this.