Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improved POV

I would say that the POV in this article is becoming fairly neutral. How/by whom is the decision made to take down the NPOV flag? --Mddake 09:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Martin Wisse took care of that. Thanks. --Mddake 02:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits for POV statements. The editor who wrote this should not make assumptions about what is clear to the readers, particularly involving cases that never saw litigation. Happy cricket 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence: "Phrased another way, more than 23,999,999 people managed to safely drink their cup of coffee for each complainant who did not." One, it's inaccurate, as the fact that only one in 24 million people complained does not indicate that only one in 24 million were injured; many people could have been lightly scalded and not complained. Two, the statistic "one in 24 million complained" speaks for itself, and I think the 23,999,999 figure is thrown in to mock the people who complained, and thus represents POV. user:lamontacranston 09:08, 28 July 2006

That's fine. Encyclopedias don't need "phrased another way" sentences. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also the 1 in 24 million customers that complain statistic is also false because it comes from 700 complaints in the 10's of billions of cups of coffee that are sold. There are not 10's of billions McDonalds customers who purchase coffee. Why does this false statistic keep getting thrown around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.178.26 (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs were simply not neutral, but instead leaned heavily in the direction of supporting so-called tort-reform. Both sides of the tort-reform arguments should be equally represented in the introduction, even if that is achieved by omitting both sides entirely. Omitting tort-reform might be difficult, as the use of this case by proponents of so-called tort-reform is the primary means by which people learn of the case. As I look deeper at the rest of the article it seems equally slanted in favor of so-called tort-reform. I intend to request a proper POV flag. phaedral 13:06, 12 October, 2009 PDT

I have excised quite a bit of material that was off-point. I am still not satisfied with the article, but find myself caught between the desire to leave as much of what is there as possible and the reality that the entire piece reads wrong to my "ear".Phaedral (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get THF restricted on this article please? He has sourced himself in the footnotes and obviously has a POV which he advocates for in every edit and espouses on his own site. I can appreciate his enthusiasm regarding the article, but his edits are clearly attempting to make a case for tort reform. I would suggest there should be a "Criticisms" section wherein some of the POV edits that make their way into the rest of the article can reside. For example, why is this quote "A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false." allowed in the trial section? Firstly, the British court didn't reject anything from this specific American case, secondly, the British court only found the evidence in question, submitted in the British Court case, to be insufficient (not scientifically false) with the respect to the facts of the British case. If the jury or court in Liebeck found something to be the case, we don't need to immediately rebut their conclusion with references to similar cases with opposite conclusions in other countries. Frazamatazzle (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

National Coffee Association of USA

I was suspicious of the claim about the National Coffee Association of USA; the link was broken, but I found the new page (the temp was slightly lower). Even given that they recommend that coffee be maintained at 180-185 degrees to maintain flavor, it's hard to understand how they can recommend coffee be served at that temperature when liquids above 140 degrees will scald. It would be nice to separate what evidence was presented in court versus what evidence Wikipedians dig up on the Web. This case seems simple enough: get a McDonald's rep on the stand and dare him to handle and drink coffee at 190 degrees. Did that happen? --Tysto 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That strategy worked wonders in the O.J. Simpson case. "If the man drinks the joe, the lawsuit has to go" or "If he don't drink it all, Mickey D's takes the fall" Dujang Prang 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the new link? Could you put it in the article please? 122.164.252.159 (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should he drink the coffee. Most people wait for their coffee to cool down before they drink it. That's normal. Also you make it seem like drinking coffee from McDonalds is like juggling knives and walking a tightrope. But millions of people drink coffee at McDonalds everyday without getting serious injuries. Hell I find it hard to believe that you have never drunk coffee at McDonalds unless you are not from the United States. It is not very unusual. I don't think a McDonald's rep would have a problem drinking and handling hot coffee. That would be like asking him to tie his shoe laces.

I juggle knives myself, but wouldn't and never have drunk coffee from McDonald's.

There's a difference between inherent, assumable, risk and outright danger. If I juggle knives carefully, my skill can prevent injury. No amount of skill can make scalding hot coffee not scald.

Coffee is intended to make contact with human tissue by its very nature. Nobody who sells me sharp knife can be presumed to know that I intend to juggle it and therefore is not reponsible for informing me of the risks inherent in the activity. ("a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind" knows that throwing and catching knives is an inherently risky activity)

Anyone selling brewed coffee which is served at scalding temperature is responsible for informing the customer that it is served at that temperature, because "a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind" could reasonably assume that coffee sold by the cup is in a state of fitness to be consumed. User:Pedant 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jackpot Justice

I have a question. Isn't there a wellknown expression called "jackpot justice"? I have often this story and other - possibly urban legends - as examples of jackpot justice. So why does wikipedia not have an article about it? Medico80 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be addressed in Tort reform in the United States. Apokrif 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Liebeck's age

Does anyone know if Stella is alive now, and if not, when she died? Leonsedov 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stella passed away on August 5, 2004 in Santa Fe, according to RootsWeb.com's Social Security Death Index search engine. CatraDhtem 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That link doesn't lead directly to her actual death page, just the home page, it needs to be fixed.--Lord Dagon (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Amount of awarded damages

"the jury awarded her US$2.7 million in damages. The award was reduced to $640,000 by the judge"

Isn't there a confusion between punitive damages and compensatory damages? I think the jury awarded $2.700,000 of punitive damages + $160,000 of compensatory damages, and that the judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, which made a total of $640,000. Apokrif 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000.

160,000 compensatory damages plus 480,000 equals 640,000 total settlement. User:Pedant 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct ... except that this was not a settlement. This was an amount awarded by a jury (i.e., its verdict or damage award) that was subsequently reduced by a judge (i.e., his judgment). There was no settlement involved, at this point. At some later point, however, the parties to the litigation did indeed settle the case. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

Citation needed

The actual court case isn't even cited in this article. Someone needs to correct this (I'm having a hard time finding it myself).

Which factual parts of this case are in dispute? The article is kinda messy—it's not even clear which court tried the case (it was a NM state court). Also the name appears to be wrong, it should be Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. The case was settled before appeal, so it was not in a published reporter, and it tends to be cited as "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)." I'd like to work on this a bit more because the caricature of this case is etched into people's minds, and they ought to know more about it. For now, I'm just going to add a proper cite and move it. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is only a trial court case; it never reached an appeals court level. Thus, there is no "citation" per se. The case was never published or reported ... because it was never appealed ... thus, there would be no reported / published citation. The "unofficial" citation that is given in the above post is simply the docket number of the trial court (No. CV-93-02419) ... meaning a civil case, filed in the year 1993, given a case number of 02419. The other "unofficial" citation given above is simply some internal numbering system that Westlaw uses in its database of cases (1995 WL 360309) ... Westlaw probably added this case to their database in 1995. So, these are not "real" citations ... they are just the case docket number and the internal numbering code assigned by Westlaw. Unpublished and unreported cases (usually trial level court cases like this that never make it to the appeal level) really have no official citation per se ... since they are never really officially published or reported. Thus, lacking a "real" citation, the docket number and/or the internal Westlaw code number are sometimes informally referred to as the case's "citation". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Precise nature of the burns

The article only mentions that she suffered third degree burns over "six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent." I've long heard that she suffered third degree burns over her genitals specifically--if true, It think this bears mentioning... even if it was the "lesser burns" on her genitals, I still think it bears mentioning.

$600k seems a bit excessive for a burned leg, but if the poor woman really had third degree burns over her clitoris and the rest of her vulva, that amount suddenly seems rather inadequate.--Lode Runner 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the jury assessed her actual damages at $200,000 (minus $40K because she was 20% at fault)—the rest was to punish McDonnald's for its behaviour.

But you're right; the article doesn't mention the location of her burns. I swore that it included the same discrete language that several sources use; "thighs, buttocks, and groin." I'll add that in. I think Nader's book might be more specific, so I'll have to check it out again. A couple of law review articles suggest the specific extent injuries of her genitals, but they only cite general background of the case with no specific reference. It's not obvious these are reliable sources.

For your consideration:

• "Of course there was more to this story than the corporate propagandists were willing to tell. The spilled coffee was so hot -- 180-190 degrees -- that the skin on Ms. Liebeck's vulva and thighs literally melted off her body down to the fatty tissue in three to seven seconds. She spent eight days in the hospital, in agonizing pain. She needed extensive skin grafts. To this day, there is permanent scarring over sixteen percent of her body -- all this from a spilled cup of coffee." – Peter G. Angelos ("a practicing attorney"), "1996 Spring Commencement Speech", 27 U. Balt. L.F. 19, 21
• "A balancing test must be undertaken to decide whether the cost of changing the policy is outweighed by the likelihood of a large punitive damage award. But defense counsel must consider the jury's tendency to act like a policymaking body itself, as it did in the Liebeck case. A careful review of the plaintiff's settlement offer should be considered in light of the emotional impactof the harm in the case at bar. It should be obvious that when an elderly woman has to undergo skin grafts to repair her genitals that the defendant should do everything it can to settle out of court- such a case should never be brought before a jury in the first place. Liebeck should teach an important lesson to defendants-never be disrespectful toward a plaintiff." – Daniel M. Weddle, INSURANCE LAW ANNUAL: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE TO LITIGATING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AFTER BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 47 Drake L. Rev. 661, 679 (1999)

I wouldn't mind if someone added more specific language, but I'd like it to be from a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks serves their drip coffee at 180 degrees or higher to this day -- my fiance was a barista for a year, and worked at several other coffee places before that. Every time I see people bring up that attorney's argument, it irks me. There's *nothing* abnormal about serving drip coffee at that temperature. It's served hot so it'll still be hot by the time you get to work. 71.146.130.162 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters how commonplace the practice is. Something can be very popular (e.g. lead pipes, or asbestos insulation) and still be very dangerous. Regardless of the justification, regardless of the convenience (personally, I think it's a pain in the ass. I generally want to drink my coffee right away, and if for some reason it does get cold we have perfectly capable microwaves both at work and at home), I don't think your average person who buys coffee at those places realizes that it's capable of inflicting third degree burns (I know I didn't.) There's a difference between "ouch, that's hot! Damn, might be tender for a few days." And "Sorry m'am, you're going to require reconstructive surgery on your genitals because the water was so hot it actually destroyed deep skin tissue." --Lode Runner 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Other forms of negligence?

Just curious if anyone else had run across this--that the temperature of the coffee wasn't the only form of negligence. The report I read (which claimed to be drawn from the case filings, and which I saw well over a year ago--so, I'm sorry, but I don't remember the source) was that this McD's was using lids that didn't fit properly and cups that became structurally unsound when filled with such high-temperature liquids--and that these were both things that McD's corporate was aware of and had done nothing to fix. If anyone could find the truth/falsity of if those claims were made, it would be a good thing to add into the entry either way (since there WAS something going around making those claims). Also...if those things were the case, it would make the jury's punitive award make sense. Baltham 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these claims were made. The claims were (1) all beverages above 140 degrees are "unreasonably dangerous"; and (2) McDonald's warnings were insufficient. -- TedFrank 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Standardised °F and °C

I have gone through and standardised °F and °C within the article. Coming from the UK where °F has been virtually phased out as with much of the world, the article was almost incomprehensible. Since this is a US-centric article I've listed F values before C. JameiLei 12:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea in principle: the problem is that you've changed text directly quoting court opinions. Feel free to redo within the Wikipedia text, and to add bracketed insertions in the quotes of court opinions, but you can't change the quote itself. -- THF 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not THIRD-degree burns

This story appears to contain a factual error in stating that the woman suffered THIRD-degree burns. This is not possible with hot coffee. She suffered SECOND-degree burns.

The link from "third-degree" burns goes to another Wikipedia page that explains burns: "Third-degree burns additionally have charring of the skin, and produce hard, leather-like eschars. An eschar is a scab that has separated from the unaffected part of the body. Frequently, there is also purple fluid. These types of burns are often painless because nerve endings have been destroyed in the involved areas."

I'm fairly certain that water-based liquids cannot cause charring; that can occur only with a flame or something hotter than boiling water.

67.149.215.27 23:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)No user name (Bill Blinn)

I would say the article on burns is confusing then. Destroyed skin is indeed possible with scalding liquids. Liebeck needed skin grafting and debridement treatment, then the burn must have been worse than second degree burns. Check this page. --J-Star 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The text in the wikipedia article is not entirely correct. "Charring", 'per se' is not necessarily a component of third degree burns to the skin, but rather "destruction of tissue". Liebeck did indeed suffer 3rd degree burns, you can safely rely on a vascular surgeon to diagnose a burn properly. Remember, we cannot rely on wikipedia as a source, ironically it is not what is considered a reliable source. User:Pedant 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

• Despite the serious nature of the injuries in question and evidence of McDonald's knowledge of the hazard of serving coffee at 185 degrees, the case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation

This sentence violates WP:NPOV: it takes a side and implies that Liebeck should not be viewed as frivolous litigation. I am restoring the old Cool Hand Luke version. THF 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Still POV

Another issue I noticed is the tone is very different from this article which briefly covers the same topic: [1] The introduction to Liebeck v. Mcdonald's Restaurants states "a jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee." In the other article it says Stella "suffered third-degree burns from hot coffee that she ordered at one of the company's drive-thrus" and rather than saying she spilled hot coffee on herself the other article says "the entire contents spilled into her lap." After reading both articles, I get the feeling one is written in a tone that makes her case sound reasonable, while this one seems to support the opposing view. I think it should be for the reader to decide whether the case was indeed frivolous, not the writers of the article. I noticed some people have come here to discuss the case because they are still confused about how she could have won the case if indeed it was as frivolous as the article sounds. so perhaps it is POV. Avigon 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV problem was with the McDonald's legal cases article, which relied entirely on the (fictional) ATLA account of the case. I've conformed it with this article, which puts forward both points of view, and thus does not violate POV. Is there a particular idea that is omitted, or a particular statement you contest? The fact of the matter is that Stella did spill coffee on herself; it is POV to take responsibility away from her by improperly phrasing it in the passive voice, and Strunk & White teach us the proper way to phrase it is in the active voice. The coffee didn't spill by itself, and McDonald's didn't spill the coffee on Liebeck. There's a reason that the majority POV is that the lawsuit is frivolous; the minority point of view is also well-represented in this article. THF 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't bad right now. A bit more could be said about the verdict, but I think the "evidence presented to jury" section explains the jury's reasoning well enough. I recall reading that the jurors were quite turned off by the testimony of Christopher Appleton—not so much the factual content of his testimony as the perception that he was callous. I didn't include it because it was poorly sourced, but I think it would have gone a long way toward explaining the verdict. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck's date of death

I think this primary source personal detail should be left out of the article per WP:NPF. This is just not relevant here, and nobody covered the event of her passing in any case, which presents a WP:WEIGHT problem. We should error on the side of privacy and keep it out. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I was curious whether she was still alive or not, found nothing on Google or Usenet (including this page), and had to go look it up on the SSDI myself. It's public information that isn't subject to any controversy or dispute. WP:WEIGHT specifies opinions and points of view, not documented facts. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included. I originally added this because I had come to the article to determine whether the plaintiff had even lived long enough to see the final award. It's worthy of being included. I refrained from re-adding it only because no one else but me seemed to favor it. It's factual, material and well-sourced, so I've put it back in. TJRC (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Information about unreported and unpublished cases

According to PATRICK S. RYAN, Revisiting the United States Application of Punitive Damages: Separating Myth from Reality: "The case is not reported or published, which means that under United States law it cannot be considered as valid precedent for any legal purpose. Westlaw has a simple one-page "unpublished" version available as part of its database service. Lexis-Nexis has no record of the case. Regarding the appeal, there is nothing, either in published, unpublished, or any other unofficial or official form." Is it possible, to get reliable data on a case, to request a copy (perhaps by e-mail) of the judgment form the court, instead of relying on commercial services? How do Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw get their data? Apokrif 22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember that this was simply a case that was tried at the trial court level. It was never appealed. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis do not have this case in their databases of appeals. (Actually, I think that both sides did indeed file an appeal, but the parties ultimately settled the case before actually arguing said appeal.) Since this was only a trial level court case, there would be no published decision to report. One might, perhaps, get trial court transcripts (at a very hefty cost) ... but there would be no "published" or "reported" decision per se at the trial court level. As far as your question about Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis: they certainly focus on publishing reported / published opinions that are generated at the appeals level. The decisions in these appeals are available to the general public ... and, thus, are easily available for Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to access. As far as trial level court cases ... only for a pretty significant or important trial case (such as this one) would Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis decide to include the case in their databases. Precisely for the reason you mention. Such trial level cases have no precedential value whatsoever. Thus, they essentially have no real "legal" value at all (to attorneys, or courts, or parties to litigation). Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis will only include a small number of these types of cases (those conducted only at the trial level, and not taken to the appeal level) simply for the general public interest that they generate ... and, perhaps, for academic purposes also. I hope this answers your questions. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Bad citation

Resolved

The first citation, linking to nmcourts.com, is a bad link. I'm not sure if there are any other legal summaries of this case available (I'm assuming that's what this link originally pointed to), but the one there right now just leads to a 404 error. Jetpac7890 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I updated the URL. The lookup required getting by an "I Accept" screen, so it may not be directly viewable. In any case, I copied the cited material so accessing the cited site itself is required only for verification. --TJRC (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like that link query is not going to stick. I think it's useful, though, for users who care to copy the docket number. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning label on the cup

I'd be interested to know what exactly the warning label said on the cup. If the warning label had specified that the content was especially hot and spilling it could cause burns does that change the case? If I buy a knife and the warning label says "sharp object don't allow blade contact with your skin" and forever whatever I allow the knife blade contact with my skin and I cut myself, is the maker of the knife liable? Could McDonalds ever be allow to serve coffee at a temp of 180 - 190F if a warning was attached - something that said "Coffee in this cup is 180 - 190F. If you spill it on yourself will you get burned."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:33, January 21, 2008 (UTC)

As far as the warning label on the cup, I found the following article: Tort Law: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case. Describing an interview with one of the jurors from the case, the article states: "The juror also was not impressed with the CAUTION: CONTENTS HOT label on the cup. She said she needed her glasses to read it." Another web site reports: "McDonald's coffee cup contained the statement 'Coffee is hot and can burn you' on the cup (but it was argued by the Plaintiff that the warning was too small to be a sufficient warning)." (See The McTruth About the Infamous McDonald's Coffee Burn Case.) Apparently, the "new" McDonald's coffee cup warning (after this case) states: CAUTION! HOT! (on the side of the cup) ... and ... Warning!: Do not pour on crotch, may cause severe pain (right under the lip of the cup). A photo is here (way down toward the bottom of the page): McDonald's Coffee Cup with Warnings. As far as all of your other questions, the simple answer is "who knows?". In every case, the jury will get a form that has a question for them to answer. The question will be something along these lines: "Do you, the jury, find that this product was dangerous or defective?" ... or ... "Do you, the jury, find that the warning label on this product was inadequate or insufficient?". So, the answer to your questions above is ... whatever the jury thinks when they are presented with these questions, after hearing all of the evidence presented at the trial. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Age inconsistencies

How can she be burnt at age 79 in 1992, and die at age 91 in 1994? Something is not right. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.51.186 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get "die at age 91 in 1994"? It says "Stella Liebeck died August 4, 2004 at age 91." TJRC (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, her death is sourced only by a Social Security lookup, which is original research, and not that important to the article anyway so I deleted it altogether. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the source is a mirror of a primary source does not make it OR. WP:OR "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." None of that is present here. The facts are published. There's no synthesis, this is a simple lookup. Where do people get the idea that getting to an authoritative source makes it OR? If I run some experiment to determine some physical property, and cite my own experiments as fact for an article; now that's OR. If I look up a law, and interpret it in an article, that interpretation is OR. But going as close to the horse's mouth as possible, to assure the accuracy and verifiability of the facts? That's not OR. This is factual data from a reliable source. It's also material to the article: when you're dealing with an elderly plaintiff in a protracted personal injury suit, it's worth noting whether the plaintiff survived long enough to obtain the proceeds of the suit. The date of death and whether to include it have already been discussed here: #Liebeck's age; #Liebeck's date of death. I've therefore restored the deleted text. TJRC (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OR that the the woman who died is the same as the person who filed the lawsuit. The record actually lists a town 60 miles from where she was reported to live in 1994. That's synthesis. If it's so important, wait for a secondary source to report it. This story is retold all over the internet. Wikipedia isn't the platform on which to connect these two bits of information. Can you see where I'm coming from now? BigBlueFish (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's synthesis. Also, as I suggested above, I think we should presume privacy anyway. I looked and could not find newspaper accounts of her passing. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to WP:NPF. That does pretty much directly cover this particular situation. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bigbluefish, thank you for your explication; I do see where you're coming from now. However, I still disagree. It's not a synthesis to look a name up in a reference and get the results. Even if there were multiple "Stella Liebeck"s returned (there aren't, there's just one), and the information returned was provided to confirm we're looking at the right entry, that's not a synthesis. It's no different from reading an article on a person and seeing the other information in the article to note that the article is discussing the same individual, and not a different person of the same name.

I also note that WP:NPF does not cover this situation. NPF is part of WP:BLP, covering biographies of living persons. By definition, information about a subject's death is not BLP. TJRC (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how many Stella Liebecks there are in the Social Security Death Index if the one in this article is still alive! The best we could do would be to say that "the SSDI lists the death of a Stella Liebeck in New Mexico aged 91 in 2004". We'd still have to prove it to be important though against the odds of the fact's absence in every other internet source. The spirit of BLP still applies to the recently (or synthesised-to-be) deceased too, and only puts emphasis on the living because of possible offence and/or litigation taken by them as a result. However, since this is an article about the court case (see WP:BIO1E), without a secondary comment on the importance of her life after death we could just as fairly put dates of death of the lawyers involved or the judge. Indeed, even if she had died shortly after the case, her medical costs would have still been outstanding and I'm sure her kids would have appreciated the extra inheritance to cover them. But I'm waffling now so I'll stop! BigBlueFish (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP represents our highest editing standards. The principles behind the policy apply everywhere, wikilaywering aside. If you really want to go that route, I note that you've provided no secondary source that she is in fact no longer a living person. When a notable individual dies, admins often revert and sometimes protect the page before a secondary source can confirm it. There is no exception to the policy when the news is death.

At any rate, the lack of secondary sources suggests that the event was not-notable, or that the press adjudged privacy to be a more important in this case. We should follow the reliable secondary sources on this topic and exclude the detail. That's what encyclopedias do. Cool Hand Luke 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

POV war

I apologize for being part of this, but when someone removed sourced info and replaced it with an opposite sourced POV, I reverted it. Then THF put it back, and someone else undid it again. Someone please incorporate both. THF shouldn't be editing this, since he's gone public with his opinion professionally and has a COI in it; and I shouldn't be editing it because he's threatening to get back at me if I cross him. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that; I just put it back and reworded it a bit. I removed the Frank source because it was an opinion piece, though I didn't catch it was identified as opinion already, so I'm sticking it back. It shouldn't be used for factual information like the second citation was; this isn't a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.212.241 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Any article that consists of over half of lists is usually misformatted. Lists should not be used to list things that are better shown as ordinary paragraphs. This article is no exception. The article should be reformatted a bit to remove the list markup and use normal paragraphs. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a change where someone inexplicably changed only one instance of "McDonald's" to "McDonalds." If there was some reason for the change, let me know.Lamontacranston 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm switching the 6 and 16 percent numbers as there is a reference to the 6 percent alone and it certainly seems more reasonable... If someone can find a stong reference to the 16 please feel free to revert - Acq3 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal article appears not to be available from Reed's website any longer (1-30-2011).99.6.17.40 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased

The article seems to be leaning against McDonald's. There are arguments for the prosecutors, but barely any for McDonald's?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.119.50 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the article section on the trial. We summarize testimony from a quality control manager from McDonald's. Because Ms. Liebeck won, we should grant most of the article on the plantiff, otherwise it'd be undue weight. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur. The New Mexico jury decision (as well as the New Mexico judge's decision to let the case go to a jury) is a minority viewpoint from both a legal standpoint and a popular perception standpoint. Just because a jury decided against the Scottsboro Boys doesn't mean that Wikipedia article violates WP:UNDUE by treating the jury verdict as a miscarriage of justice. That said, the current version of this article seems to satisfy NPOV, though it's missing an "Aftermath" section describing how it came to be a buzzword in 1990s popular culture. THF (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia meant to be a celebrity gossip magazine or an unbiased source of information? 207.38.210.193 (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentary

There is a documentary coming out, called Hot Coffee, at this years sundance film festival. I believe it is relevant to this page, but I guess some one needs to see it first... I just thought it was interesting because it discusses implication of corporate spin in very public lawsuits such as this one. If you are interested in Law and economic value then you should witness this documentary. Adrianturcato (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

This article is biased. In the very heading, it comes off as very negative about the nature of the lawsuit and fails to acknowledge that the plaintiff suffered third degree burns as a result of the extremely hot coffee (180-190), that McDonalds has had over 700 reports in their documentation about similar incidents, and in general takes a very "frivolous" view of the lawsuit while ignoring major details. Stella was a victim not a con-artist

G 99.180.193.159 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about facts

"Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight)" I am not sure this is clear. Is it saying that she only weighs 100lbs.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.193 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this wikipedia or corporatepedia

1. Someone sells you undrinkable coffee - it will always cause you burns if you try to drink a significant amount of it right away - which almost everyone *tries to do* based on the evidence in the case. 2. You spill said undrinkable coffee on yourself 3. You sue the overprivileged idiots asking why they sold you undrinkable/ultra hot coffee 4. Overprivileged idiots cannot come up with a reason backed by scientific evidence about why they sold you undrinkable coffee. 5. You win. 6. Some wikidiots and drones make a shitty bias article about the case. 7 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is even handed and is presented from a NPOV. If you have documented information that is not included in the article you are free to add it. Name calling is not a good way to make your point.Tomsv 98 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

At what point...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please remember that Wikipedia, including talk pages, is not a forum: WP:NOTAFORUM. I would be bold and delete this entire section under that policy, as it continues to attract forum-like comments, but Drmike's comment below actually addresses article content. Instead, I am closing it off to add'l comments. TJRC (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

---

At what point can the victims lack of common sense be blamed...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.119.221 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the 80%/20% blame figure mentioned in the article. --Drmike (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When I took business law in college a year after the lawsuit, the textbook & professor used the McDonald's lawsuit as an example a few times, and said that it's a matter of whether the product matched a reasonable person's expectations. Most people expect that hot coffee will redden the skin & cause brief pain without any real harm, and thus handle it with fairly casual caution... They would have no reason to expect such severe tissue damage as to require a period of hospitalization for skin grafts (surgery), so common sense wouldn't warn them to take the much more serious measures needed to avoid long-term injury. --☥ Xyzzy Avatar ☥ 05:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzzyavatar (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV dispute

This article is written from a very subjective point of view supporting the proposition that the Liebeck suit was a frivolous lawsuit. Several statements that are opinions from parties supporting that viewpoint (or even McDonalds themselves) are listed as fact. For example, the statement "McDonald's loss in the Liebeck case remains a fluke" is taken from an American Lawyer article which was actually QUOTING a McDonalds representative. The American Lawyer article is also cited for support of the statement that "Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee." In fact, the article explicitly states McDonalds provided no information about the current temperature their coffee is served at. The statement "However, McDonald's coffee remains hot, which is the industry standard." is again a ludicrous defense of the frivolous lawsuit POV. "Hot" is not an accurate description of temperature let alone an industry standard. There are too many inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods in support of the frivolous lawsuit POV to list. This article needs extensive revisions or simply needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKG990 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "fluke"; I was looking for a citation for the previously uncited proposition (which appears to be true) that no other court has found liability in these circumstances, and that several have come out the other way. Will tweak the language.

There are several sources for the temperature of McDonald's coffee, both before and after the suit. They do fall within the industrial guidelines, that are also cited, and several articles make this general defense. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

One Lump article

Regarding the recent edits by an IP, seen here and here, removing some content that was sourced to the "One Lump" article (by Matt Fleischer-Black, from the June 2004 edition of The American Lawyer), I concur with Meshach that regardless of whether or not a source sits behind a pay-for-view site, it doesn't invalidate the sourcing and it's still a reliable source. However, this lead me to see if I could find a free version of the text and I discovered a reprint here. While it appears to be the same article, what struck me was that several of assertions that are sourced to it (namely that McDonald's did not lower the temperature of the coffee after Liebeck, that the SCA supports improved packaging methods over lowering coffee serving temperature, and what the SCA director reports the coffee serving temperature to be at in the industry in 2004) do not appear in the "One Lump" source article. Thus, they appear to fail verification from that source. Does anyone have any thoughts on this particular discrepancy? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite- inconsistant, repetitive

This has numerous inconsistencies within the article about amounts rewarded, and repititions of information. It should be rewritten. Mross0012 (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)mross0012, 23 Sept 2013 prefix:Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants/

Picture?

I saw a doc about this case (it might have been the "Hot Coffee" doc mentioned in the main article). I confess to having been one of those who thought the case was frivolous until I saw the picture of the burns and heard all the facts. I think it would be a great help to the perspective of this article if you can add the pic (Yes I do know that it borders on the gross) so that people can see "what all the fuss was about".80.111.155.138 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

urls for burns pics - pls someone add, I don't know how to upload

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4820c7e31a90a1b89482c675a7a77f23?convert_to_webp=true

http://www.imgur.com/qNtr1Lb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrpickaxe (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The correct abbreviation for "versus" in legal cases is 'v.'

A relatively new user Rcoffelt (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed the correct "v." abbreviation in this article to "vs.". (I'll give the new user the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that, other than this edit war, his or her sole contributions to Wikipedia is to label Southern German Austrians as "Australian [sic] dick fuckers" and then self-reverting. I'll charitably assume that that ill-advised start was just a foolish prank and the self-revert represented repentance.)

In U.S. case law, the correct abbreviation for "versus" is "v.", not "vs."; see The Bluebook: a Uniform System of Citation, Rule 10: ("v." for "versus).

Harry the Dirty Dog has been fighting the good fight and correcting Rcoffelt's error with appropriate edit summaries, but Rcoffelt seems to elude the clue, so I'm making it explicit here. TJRC (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

legal limit to beverage temperature

Is there a law stating that you cannot sell coffee above a certain temperature? This should be stated in the article regardless if the answer to that question is true or not, as it is a very important detail in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.41.152 (talk) 18:47, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

There isn't one, but it isn't actually important because this was not a criminal trial, it was a tort law trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanlott78 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303195637/http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html to http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)