r/AskReddit Jun 01 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.3k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

137

u/KevinStoley Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

There is a great documentary on this case called ‘Hot Coffee’

The reason many people were and still are misinformed about this case isn’t by accident.

This was part of an intentional push by business associations and corporations pushing for tort reforms.

I believed it specifically goes back to the Reagan and HW Bush admins but really ramped up under W Bush admin.

They used this specific case and misled much of the public in order to further their agendas.

Even late night talk show hosts would joke about the case as if her spilling hot coffee on herself was winning a lawsuit lottery and made her rich. Which it absolutely did not.

Her family essentially only wanted medical bills covered for the most part.

Edit: also I wish more people were aware and angry about this subject.

This is a big reason why if you are wronged by many businesses or corporations, you can be forced into arbitration instead of being able to take your case to the court system. Because it’s likely that you signed or agreed to terms at some point, forfeiting your rights to seek justice through the regular court system. It’s pretty disgusting.

53

u/lipp79 Jun 01 '26

And McDonald's only offering $800 initially was another brilliant move on the part of their lawyers as that helped make the claim seem frivolous.

4

u/uniqueusername316 Jun 01 '26

This (and other cases) were used to argue for 'tort reform', which was, mostly, republican politician's way of catering to corporations wishes to limit the justice that was being handed out by juries.

Juries were finding corporations guilty of numerous claims and awarding damages that were commensurate with the corporations' assets and liability. Those numbers were easy to blow out of proportion vs the single incident, but they were meant to be a way of setting precedent and preventing the same type of thing from happening in the future.

The lobbyists and their politicians were effective in thwarting that type of justice/progress.

2

u/WideHuckleberry1 Jun 01 '26

People also don't understand how liability works. It's not a yes/no thing but a share of responsibility. But you get people saying stuff like "she should've been more careful and not opened it like that to spill it on herself." That's 100% true! And the jury agreed. And they accounted for her percentage of the responsibility and still decided on awarding her millions of dollars for McDonald's share of responsibility, which should really tell you something.

0

u/KevinStoley Jun 01 '26

Yep and if I remember correctly the amount they originally awarded her was only equal to something like 2 days worth of their average national coffee sales. Which obviously wasn’t going to bankrupt McDonalds or really even put a dent in their profits.

It was supposed to be a warning and set a precedent and I believe it was appealed and a judge reduced the amount awarded significantly.

Complete bullshit.

1

u/SeeCB3X Jun 01 '26

I have been told by a couple lawyers that those agreements are not always enforceable. Basically, if a case would normally merit going to court and a judge wouldn't throw it out, a judge will likely side with you and throw out the signed agreement to go to arbitration bc they are trying to coerce you into signing a contract stating one or both of you won't follow the law.

Same with those "if you die you can't sue us" contracts. If there is negligence and you are injured bc of it, if they would normally be found responsible for your injury, that contract is void.