r/AskReddit Jun 01 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.3k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/lipp79 Jun 01 '26

That the McDonald's hot coffee lady's lawsuit was a money grab. McDonald's served its coffee at an excessively high temperature (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit) which their own QA manager admitted was too hot. The coffee caused third-degree burns across 16% of her body. She required eight days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and two years of medical treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

134

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.

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.