The injuries were severe but it was her own fault. It is ludicrous to say that there needs to be a warning label stating that hot coffee is hot.
Probably the hottest thing she ever had between her legs.
For those of you who only read the “media’s” remedy for the poor woman’s problems was a “warning label,” it is not. While the woman was compensated in part due to her injuries the real remedy was getting McDonald’s to serve the hot coffee at a more reasonable temperature. Credit also go to McD for addressing the issue and fixing the problem they were causing so that others did not receive 2* & 3* burns.
And yes a lot of you put coffee cups between you legs, on the dash, seat, roof and other places.
The temp was at 180-190 degrees. There were hundreds of complaints of burns to McDonalds prior. The daughter pursued just medical costs after her mom went into shock, but mcd offered 800. It was the jury who came p&s awarded to 2 days of coffee sales. The judge lowered it
Got a chuckle at the hardware store looking at hack saws. One package actually said the product posed a cutting risk.
Well there is a cautionary notice on microwave meals that the food will be hot when removed from the microwave.
She could have tripped and dropped the cup on a child. For purposes of argument. The child wouldn’t have been exposed to the hot liquid as long as she was, behind the wheel of her car, but it would have been pretty bad.
Anyway for the purposes of argument, would the hypothetical injuries to the child have been Mrs. Leebeck’s liability or McDonald’s liability?