> Stella Awards
>
> It's time again for the annual Stella Awards! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck, who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?
>
That's right, these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.
>
> Here are the Stella's for the past year:
>
7TH PLACE:

> Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.
>
> 6TH PLACE:

Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California , won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord.
> Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
>
>
> 5TH PLACE:

Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut.
> Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.
>
> 4TH PLACE:

> Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the
> Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being
> bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though
> the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get
> as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have
> been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed
> over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.
>
> 3RD PLACE:
>
> A jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and
> broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor:
> Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
> argument. Whatever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?
>

> 2ND PLACE
>
> Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, sued the owner of a nightclub in a
> nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor,
> knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms.Walton was trying to
> sneak through the ladies' room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover
> charge, the jury said the nightclub had to pay her $12,000, oh, yeah, plus dental expenses.
>
>
>
> 1ST PLACE: (May we have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos, please.)
>
> This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv
> Grazinski of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased a new 32-foot
> Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game,
> having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and
> calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make
> herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway,
> crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued
> Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down, $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home.
> Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

Every one of these is unbelievable.

I know how hard it is to win in court even when you have a legitimate case - I can't imagine what the extenuating circumstance were in some of these.

While I find the cases highlighted in the "Stella Awards" uniformly maddening, I am FAR more offended by the casual ignorance shown toward the case for which they are named. Many frivolous lawsuits reach an unjustifiable conclusion. Stella Liesman's suit against McDonald's is decidedly not one of them.

McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case


Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's injuries–which included 3rd degree burns across her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks–were no laughing matter.

Facts About the Case

*

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.
*

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

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

*

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.
*

Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.
*

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

* Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

McDonald's Attitude

* During discovery, McDonald's 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 Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

*

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
*

The quality assurance manager further 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 while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
*

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as 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.

*

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
*

McDonald's 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 third-degree 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.

According to The Wall Street Journal

A Jury of One's Peers

*

The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "
*

The Journal quoted one juror, Jack Elliott, remarking after the trial that the case had been about such "callous disregard for the safety of the people."
*

The Journal story continued, "Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually. To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. 'There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,' says juror Betty Farnham."
*

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."
*

By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."

The Verdict

*

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 McDonald's coffee sales.
*

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's 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 McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

I'm thinking these don't pass the smell test.

I don't have time to Snopes each one, but I know the Winnebago story has been floating around for years, and there is no evidence that it ever happened.

I love a good story as much as the next guy, but I'm calling BS on these.

And yet OJ walks free...

No need to search for each one...they are conveniently listed together. Good reads though!

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

This stuff was a lot more fun befor Snopes, but I'd guess I'd rather know the truth.

Duh .... sorry. I'm usually more careful before repeating stuff like that. Gotta rise out of FLB tho.

Kinda gives you more respect for the general population (or at least juries) knowing all those stories are bs.

Yup. On one of my 'pet peeve' issues!

Well, now, I wouldn't go too far.

I was a trial lawyer (50/50 plaintiff and defense, civil cases) for about 7 years before going to vet school. As Indyboater said, it's hard to win even a legitimate case. I have a great deal of respect for people who sit on juries. Less for the politicians who attack the jury system for personal gain.

Makes you wonder, if you ever are accused of a crime... judge or jury? It's your choice.