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.

    • shuzuko@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could be, but they aren’t. The woman literally had her labia fused together from the burn and just wanted them to pay for her fucking surgery.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      She didn’t seek out that much money. She only wanted money to cover her medical costs. If you feel upset about the amount then you should blame the jury. They’re the ones who came up with the amount. (Which the judge lowered.)

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        65
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not about the money. Its about her being as dumb and as irresponsible as mcds.

            • Exatron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              ·
              1 year ago

              The woman who received serious burns from McDonald’s overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.

            • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              1 year ago

              There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn’t a person so it’s not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.

            • Nusm
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -

              1. She wasn’t driving the car, her nephew was.
              2. The car wasn’t moving, he pulled over and stopped so she could put in the cream & sugar.
              3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the coffee that McDonald’s served was not consumable by a human because of the excessive temperature.
              4. She was hospitalized for 8 days with 3rd degree burns, followed by 2 years of medical treatment.
              5. She only sued for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.

              Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”

              She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.

              Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.

              • Dkarma@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                19
                ·
                1 year ago

                So she could have gotten out and she spilled it on herself.

                Still her own fault.

                • Nusm
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.

            • shuzuko@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Others have already very kindly explained how you’re completely, totally wrong, so I’ll just add:

              Neener neener, you’re a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D

            • BearOfaTime
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right. Her getting third degree burns means she wasn’t a victim.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            43
            ·
            1 year ago

            Gee I spilled hot coffee in my lap…let me just do nothing and sit in it.

            Ur labia don’t get fused cuz coffee gets splashed on them.