I dont know the case as to kentucky, but i did learn a bit about the stella liebeck case.

at the time, the coffee machines made for mcDonalds were not made the same way as the coffee machines in 7 eleven or your house. they were quite a bit hotter.

when the coffee spilled it caused so much damage that stella required skin grafts.

if you look at the refutation they blame her for wearing clothing and not being able to stop and get out of the car in under 90 seconds.

False: Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns because, while wearing sweatpants that absorbed the liquid and held it to her skin, she sat in a puddle of hot coffee for over ninety seconds.

so its the fault of a 79 year old woman that makes the same assumptions as everyone does to call this a ridiculous case, which techically would help define a reasonable person standard.

it was and is reasonable that if one manufactures their machines to a different standard, than what is common to the reasonable person, that a reasonable person should be informed of this difference so as to adapt their behavior to this situation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case

Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

to which she only wanted her bills paid and mc D offered her 800.

most peopel dont understand the purpose of such cases. we like to say they are parasites, and that maybe true, but thats not the plaintifs fault thats the JURYS fault. its the jury that dicatates damages and such. the plaintiff can ask for 20 billion dollars, its the jury that makes the awards based on merit.

so if the jury was less anticorporatist and socialist, they might not be awarding parasitical amounts.

also what would be the alternative to such cases?

well, the state, would become totalitarian as it attempted to come up with every possible rule for companies to follwo and their liabilies.

they would make laws mandating the temperature... and then take tax money to employ inspectors to check for compliance... and the list would go on.

you have three choices.

ignore all liability...

let the state set all the rules so there is no liability if there is compliance (which is not the same as not being resposible).

and cases in court in which there are no rules which force companies to think morally about the choices they make since they dont know where a suit might come from.

yes there is abuse... there is always abuse where money is given out. to expect something different is to imagine utopia.

its the nature of beuracracy that such things will happen which is why the oldsters thought to limit beuracracys since you couldnt separet it from its nature.

people expect their products to be a certain way... take for instance the toys with the lead paint in them.

thats parasitical too... no? or is it that you agree that led paint is bad so the case is good.

a law that says no lead is not enough...

since you cant criminally prosecute, so liability is your option.

unless you can come up with a better way that doesnt rely no an authoritarian state making a lock down set of rules that restricts progress to a crawl, or you ahve to accept that there will be cases that dont meet everyones expectations.

however, for the most part, american products and services are the safest in the world. so much so that we are having problems dealing with other countries who have much lower standards.

In short, the jury found that

- McDonalds coffee was hotter than coffee served elsewhere, to a dangeous degree (nearly boiling)

- They knew it and did not provide warning

- They had refused settle for just the cost of treating the predictable occasional burns (just $20K)

BTW, the cup DID have a "coffee is hot" type warning. It did not warn the customer that the coffee is significantly hotter than normal.

See Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Sam:
The coffee wasn't hotter than coffee served elsewhere according to the same Wikipedia page. And McDonald's did provide a warning, again, according to the same Wikipedia page. Why should McDonald's pay for medical bills when it wasn't their fault? Did you read the original link?

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.