am gonna ruin adam... a little.
physics is the reason mcdonalds sold really hot coffee. the hotter a fluid is, the quicker it becomes cold... which probable doesn't mean what you think it means. the rate a fluid decreases in temp from 200-199 is gonna be faster than from 199-198. is not that if you have a 200 degree fluid it will reach room temp faster than one at 150. regardless, really hot coffee cools really fast, and that is likely the only time you is ever gonna see Gromnir use "really" multiple times in a post. mcdonalds didn't make huge amounts o' money on their coffee, and people wanted hot coffee. could spend more money on super-insulated cups, which woulda' cost mcdonalds money or, they could make the coffee hotter, so would stay hot longer. made sense to heat the coffee from mcdonald's point o' view.
point is, there were good physics behind why mcdonalds served frightful hot coffee, and they did include a warning label, and as adam glosses over, the coffee spill were the old ladies fault, 'cause whether she is a silver-haired old lady drawn to look like adam's grandmother should not make her a better client. put a fragile paper and plastic cup o' hot coffee 'tween your legs with only thing holding in contents is a flimsy lid and hope. what could possible go wrong, eh? in fact, the jury decided the coffee spill were mostly grandma's fault, which is why actual damages were far less than the $20,000 she were asking for in her lawsuit. but again, illinois is a contributory negligence state, so if mcdonalds is deemed to be 20% at fault, they need pay 20% o' damages.
sounds fair, yes?
ok, and here is the kicker, the reason the award were so large were 'cause o' something called punitive damages. on these boards we have used the coffee case to illustrate how punitive damages work and why awards may be so large. because mcdonalds were a fraction at fault in the case there were the possibility o' punitive damages IF mcdonalds were wanton reckless or knowing negligent in their behavior... and that is where those other 800 people who got burned during a relative short period o' time become the linchpin to the big award. mcdonalds knew folks were getting burned. mcdonalds knew the little old lady were hardly the first to use her legs to hold the cup while adding cream ad/or sugar or talking on phone or adjusting radio or driving. mcdonalds knew, despite warnings, that people were getting burned, and they were at least a little responsible for people getting burned. so how does a civil court punish mcdonalds to make certain such behavior does not repeat?
money. civil court remedy is money. if your neighbor did same as mcdonalds (which is not possible, but try and imagine your neighbor is the person responsible for all those burned people) how big o' a fine would need be level'd at her to make her stop selling sooper-hot coffee to little old ladies too stoopid to know better than to put the cup between their legs? if ms. ________ makes $50k a year, a $5k fine would hurt far more than if she made $500k, yes?
...
see where this is going?
lawyer pulls out a dry-erase board and shows simple math to jury. lawyer, all magnanimous, agrees a $5k punishment for ms. ____________ would be extreme harsh and unnecessarily high. so how 'bout $1000... or even $500. would a $500 fine be enough punishment to prevent ms. _________ from contributing to the burning o' 800 future customers? the thing is, mcdonalds don't make $50k. mcdonalds generates billions in revenue, +$20 billion.
50,000 ---- 500
20,000,000,000 ----
lawyer dramatic adds the zeroes and ends up with $20mil.
and why didn't the other $800 people sue? more than a few tried, but most couldn't get an attorney to even take their case. lawyers were looking for the perfect client. needed somebody who suffered and didn't simple get a slight blister on their tongue. legal, burned tongue or lap makes no difference for the punitive damages calculation, but makes a difference to juries. needed somebody whom the jury would sympathize with. so, we get the parked car with everybody's favorite grandma as the victim, and she gets 3rd degree burns. ideal plaintiff.
weren't a frivolous lawsuit, but adam kinda leaves stuff out and glosses over other points for effect. regardless, the basic misunderstanding were 'bout the nature o' punitive damages. single plaintiffs receive huge award for even minor injury happens 'cause o' civil court limited options for changing behavior o' bad actors. court punishes with money. the big award ain't 'bout the nature or magnitude o' the injury... ain't even 'bout how vile and cruel were bad actor. penalty is big 'cause the defendant is really, really wealthy and a monetary chastisement which would be effective in correcting such behavior must needs be really, really big. really.
...
feel like paul harvey.
anybody bother to read all that? oh well.
HA! Good Fun!