How much do you really know about the "Hot Coffee" case?

Long the poster child for "tort reform" (aka, the ability for corporations to use laws to limit their liability when they hurt someone), the "Hot Coffee" case (Liebeck v MdDonalds) is not the case the popular (and corporate controlled) media presented to us as the reason why damage awards should be capped and in some cases plaintiffs be excluded from seeking court relief.

Did you know:

• At the time, McDonald's procedure specified a serving pot temperature of 180-190 F. Your home machine will serve your cup at 145-155 F. Premium coffee shops do serve hotter, with Starbucks at 170 or so. A cup of coffee at 190 F is 20-30 degrees or more hotter than what most would reasonably expect.
• Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. With this information, the company offered her $800.
• McDonald's own documents that emerged in the case, from 1982 to 1992 McDonald's received over 700 formal written complaints from customers with scalded lips or tongues, mouth blisters, as well as spill induced burns very similar to those in the lawsuit. McDonald's took no action to address the complaints.
• The woman suffered severe 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafting and surgeries.

http://ift.tt/1D6fHML (even has a picture of the injuries, but don't open it at work or if you have a weak stomache)

"Tort reform" is a sham and a scam. Corporations just want to be able to hurt people with impunity (and immunity) by cutting corners and doing unsafe things.

Excellent documentary about the Liebeck case and "tort reform" in general:

http://ift.tt/1JLnigH

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1D6fFo7