Jets Fans Sue Pats for 184 million dollars.

[Guest _my_2_cents_]

I am as vocal about the Pats cheating as anyone, but this is freakin ridiculous.

 

Jets ticket holder sues Patriots and coach Belichick, seeks damages of more than $184 million

 

By DENNIS WASZAK Jr. - AP Sports Writer

 

2007-09-28 17:17

 

 

NEW YORK (AP) -A New York Jets season-ticket holder filed a class-action lawsuit Friday against the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick for ``deceiving customers.''

 

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J., by Carl Mayer of Princeton Township, N.J., stems from the Patriots being caught illegally videotaping signals from Jets coaches in New England's 38-14 season-opening win Sept. 9.

 

``They violated the integrity of the game,'' Mayer's attorney, Bruce Afran, told The Associated Press. ``This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots.''

 

Mayer is seeking more than $184 million in damages for Jets ticket holders.

 

Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose - including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.

 

``They were deceiving customers,'' said the 48-year-old Mayer. ``You can't deceive customers.''

 

The lawsuit maintained that because other teams found illegal videotaping by the defendants, Jets ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000.

 

The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight ``fraudulent'' games, they're entitled to triple that amount - or $184.8 million - in compensation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

 

``How many times have the Patriots done this? We find it hard to believe they did it just once,'' Mayer said. ``We just want to get to the truth of the matter of what the Patriots did to the Jets. I think the ticket holders are genuinely concerned about it. This is a type of misrepresentation.''

 

Patriots spokesman Stacey James declined to comment on the lawsuit.

 

Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes.

 

Both have lost bids for elected offices, and Mayer once served as a presidential campaign adviser to Ralph Nader.

 

Their demand in March for a probe of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's gifts to a former girlfriend was rejected by a federal prosecutor. In 2006, a judge vetoed their effort to block Corzine's appointment of Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to fill the governor's seat in the U.S. Senate.

 

They also failed to get a court to order a special election to replace Gov. James E. McGreevey when he resigned in 2004.

 

Now, they're taking on the Patriots.

 

Their latest lawsuit asserted that the secret videotaping violated the contractual ``expectations and rights'' of Jets ticket holders ``to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations.''

 

The actions of Belichick and the Patriots violated federal and state racketeering laws, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the lawsuit.

 

``Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged,'' Mayer said. ``The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud.''

[dominus florenzus 0]

If I was in charge, I would imprison ###### like this who file asinine lawsuits like this and waste court time and taxpayer money.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Yes, they should fine this guy for a frivolous lawsuit. After all, if they could not sue Rich Kotite for the deception that he perpetrated, then everything else is by definition frivolous

[Quickolas1 80]

i'd go over his house and punch him in the face in front of his wife & kids

 

please help answer mine: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=291776

 

thanks in advance!

[dreadlocks34 0]

i'd go over his house and punch him in the face in front of his wife & kids

 

I opened this thread with the expectation of either finding this statement or posting it myself.

[Niners_fan 0]

He's got a strong case!!!!!

[Pimptaddy 0]

This person is an idiot. He claims, "you can't deceive customers!" Every commercial ever made, every cheap used car salesman on earth and basically everything involving money has the sole purpose of deceiving customers. You could take all the Jets fans and their lives would not be worth $1 million.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

Since its a class action suit and I'm a Jets season ticket holder I hope he wins.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Since its a class action suit and I'm a Jets season ticket holder I hope he wins.

 

Puuulllllleeeeasssseeee!

 

We all know that Jets fans have NO CLASS

 

[gatorcane 0]

a lady won millions from mcdonalds for being a piece of sh_t dumbass for putting coffee in between her legs and suing for millions when she got burned when it spilled. "I didn't know it was that hot". bulls_t, it is f-ing coffee, wen were you told it was cold? Our legal system sucks when this kind of bullsh_t can happen and if that crap can happen then I am not certain that the crack hoes and other ingnorant f_cks that will end up on this jury wont end up awarding this retard the millions that he seeks. I think I am going to sue all trial lawyers for the millions of dollars in cases they cost the system with their piece of crap lawsuits.

[harken34 0]

Only in america.

 

 

This is almost as bad as the fat people trying to sure Burger King and other fast food joints for making them fat.

[Brian Bozworth Fan Club 0]

Sounds like a lot of grandstanding. This law suit will probably win them a lot of votes from Jet fans when they run for office next time, not to mention get their practices name in the headlines for current business.

[Blue Barbarian 0]

Cheaters may as well open their wallets. It's less painful than Jets fans sending them to an emergency room.

[ROCKET 0]

He should be sueing the Jets for having to endure being a fan of such a pathetic organization. That's definately cruel and unusual punishment.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

He should be sueing the Jets for having to endure being a fan of such a pathetic organization. That's definately cruel and unusual punishment.

 

 

I smell a second class action suit...

[SWAMI SEZ 0]

Typical NY "nitwit"

[traders2001 0]

Typical NY "nitwit"

 

 

Exactly , New Yorkers are not totally there .

[Justy2 0]

This case is a glowing example for the need of Tort reform. Idiots like him need to lose their right to practice. The defense requests a motion for dismissal because the prosecution is insane.

[Dr. Octopus 0]

This case is a glowing example for the need of Tort reform. Idiots like him need to lose their right to practice. The defense requests a motion for dismissal because the prosecution is insane.

 

 

The "prosecution" is not involved in this case, its a civil action.

[Justy2 0]

The "prosecution" is not involved in this case, its a civil action.

 

Golly gee thanks Mr. Wizard!

[hines86rules 0]

 

Brillant lawsuit!!!!!!!!!!

[Moonpies 0]

I have a hard time understanding why everyone thinks this is frivilous. If you read the article, they are sueing for the money that season ticket holders have spent on the games that the Patriots have played the Jets at Giants Stadium. Their basis is that the league has found and disciplined the Pats for cheating and that cheating amounts to a fraud perpetrated on the fans who paid to see a fair football contest. Because there is fraud involved, the law allows for trebble damages, basically triple the amount of actual damages. Sorry, but this thing has legs. They have every right to try and prove in a court of law that they are victems of fraud at the hands of the Pats. Will they win? I doubt it, but the case will be heard most likely in Jersey where there are a ton of Jets fans. The biggest thing this involves, if allowed to move forward, is the discovery phase. The lawyers will be able to dipose anyone they want from the Pats organization past and present as well as the league offices. These dispositions are under the penalty of perjury. The court could also allow them access to any and all team offices and records, as well a league offices and film to look for evidence to cheating. I believe this suit has been brought because the league has swept it under the rug. Noone believes that everything that happened has been discovered. There has been no explanation on what the Pats were doing with several open frequencies instead of the one allowed. Most people believe they have been doing this for years and a Jets fan is taking a stand and attempting to try and find out what really has been going on since the league won't. People have sued and won in the country for much less than this. Remember the league has already found the Pats guilty of cheating. You don't think that will carry weight in a court of law? Now its up to those bringing the case to prove it in a court of law which certainly won't be easy but alot a damning things that the league did not want out could be revealed!

[Pinto 0]

So does that mean they can sue baseball teams for stealing signs? Cheating has been in sports forever and a simple case of spying still doesn't exactly change the result on the field--you still have to make the plays. I completely agree with the commish's actions and discipline.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I have a hard time understanding why everyone thinks this is frivilous. If you read the article, they are sueing for the money that season ticket holders have spent on the games that the Patriots have played the Jets at Giants Stadium. Their basis is that the league has found and disciplined the Pats for cheating and that cheating amounts to a fraud perpetrated on the fans who paid to see a fair football contest. Because there is fraud involved, the law allows for trebble damages, basically triple the amount of actual damages. Sorry, but this thing has legs. They have every right to try and prove in a court of law that they are victems of fraud at the hands of the Pats. Will they win? I doubt it, but the case will be heard most likely in Jersey where there are a ton of Jets fans. The biggest thing this involves, if allowed to move forward, is the discovery phase. The lawyers will be able to dipose anyone they want from the Pats organization past and present as well as the league offices. These dispositions are under the penalty of perjury. The court could also allow them access to any and all team offices and records, as well a league offices and film to look for evidence to cheating. I believe this suit has been brought because the league has swept it under the rug. Noone believes that everything that happened has been discovered. There has been no explanation on what the Pats were doing with several open frequencies instead of the one allowed. Most people believe they have been doing this for years and a Jets fan is taking a stand and attempting to try and find out what really has been going on since the league won't. People have sued and won in the country for much less than this. Remember the league has already found the Pats guilty of cheating. You don't think that will carry weight in a court of law? Now its up to those bringing the case to prove it in a court of law which certainly won't be easy but alot a damning things that the league did not want out could be revealed!

 

 

Now we are going to have to sue the Chargers for having Merriman on steroids. The penalties imposed by the league have no bearing in a court of law.

 

This is the same as the guy filing suit over his pants not coming back from the dry cleaners. You could find that it has merit if you really want to stretch things, but ultimately, the judge (if it ever gets to one) will toss it out and order the plaintiff to pay court costs.

[yako0o 0]

Good.

 

Anything that reminds people that the Patriots were cheating is great.

 

The Patriots were caught by other teams several times to the point where the league had to step in. The league then penalized the patriots the BIGGEST sanction ever imposed on a team. Yes, reread the last line. This was the biggest act of cheating ever caught and punished in the NFL ever.

 

Yet theres tons of dumb people with responces like--"They would have won anyway", "Other teams do it all the time", "its standard in the NFl" bla, bla, bla. Their prob the same people that defend Bonds because he was a great player "before steroids", or "everyone in baseball did steroids in the era".

 

The Patriots are the best team in the NFL right now, but how could you blame this guy, or anyone that wants their money back at a game that had cheating, set up, or a cheating ref?

 

He aint going to see one dollar and his case will be dismissed, but hes a lawyer---He knows that. But looking at the sum hes asking for this is more about the headline/calling out the Pats then thinking hes actually getting money back.

[yako0o 0]

 

Now we are going to have to sue the Chargers for having Merriman on steroids. The penalties imposed by the league have no bearing in a court of law.

 

This is the same as the guy filing suit over his pants not coming back from the dry cleaners. You could find that it has merit if you really want to stretch things, but ultimately, the judge (if it ever gets to one) will toss it out and order the plaintiff to pay court costs.

 

 

Im not sure if you actually follow sports but Steroids are against the law--and if you remember---Palmeiro, Sosa, Mcguire etc were in front of Congress scared sh1tless. There have been a ton of people currently sent to jail for being involved with steroids and Bonds will be on trial if it is ever uncovered that he did them.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Im not sure if you actually follow sports but Steroids are against the law--and if you remember---Palmeiro, Sosa, Mcguire etc were in front of Congress scared sh1tless. There have been a ton of people currently sent to jail for being involved with steroids and Bonds will be on trial if it is ever uncovered that he did them.

 

Really? So Palmeiro and Sosa were prosecuted for those actions? Hmm. I must have missed that. You obviously DON'T follow sports because I don't think that Palmeiro was scared sh!tless at all as he was waving his finger at Congress telling them that he did not do steroids. McGwire said nothing, so don't even try to say that they were scared.

 

The point is that baseball players have "defrauded" the fans for years and there is no suit forthcoming. Merriman did the same thing with his steroid use. It is not an actionable item with actual damages. This is some sore loser fan trying to make headlines and a name for himself. This is not someone who is standing up for their beliefs.

[Moonpies 0]

Big difference between what the Pats did and individual players taking steroids. The Pats cheating came from the organization so obviously high ranking team officials were conspiring to cheat and therefor defraud the paying customers who paid to see a fair game. If you had a coach or other team official handing out steroids to numerous players then I could see a comparison but not just a few players doing it on their own. And another thing, I've seen Pats fans crying foul because they say the Jets fans are not customers of the Pats. This is just not true. Teams share ticket revenue so those tickets holders paid the Pats to see a fair game which they didn't get.

[mec411 0]

This person is an idiot. He claims, "you can't deceive customers!" Every commercial ever made, every cheap used car salesman on earth and basically everything involving money has the sole purpose of deceiving customers. You could take all the Jets fans and their lives would not be worth $1 million.

 

you're an idiot

[49ER MAN 0]

Puuulllllleeeeasssseeee!

 

We all know that Jets fans have NO CLASS

 

 

No that would be Eagle fans who have no class.

[yako0o 0]

Really? So Palmeiro and Sosa were prosecuted for those actions? Hmm. I must have missed that. You obviously DON'T follow sports because I don't think that Palmeiro was scared sh!tless at all as he was waving his finger at Congress telling them that he did not do steroids. McGwire said nothing, so don't even try to say that they were scared.

 

The point is that baseball players have "defrauded" the fans for years and there is no suit forthcoming. Merriman did the same thing with his steroid use. It is not an actionable item with actual damages. This is some sore loser fan trying to make headlines and a name for himself. This is not someone who is standing up for their beliefs.

 

Where did I say they were prosecuted ?--Learn to read.

 

Sosa was so scared he forgot how to speak english. Mcguire said nothing. Palmeiro lied. They all were too scared to admit to their steroid use. Why? BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE LAW.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Where did I say they were prosecuted ?--Learn to read.

 

Sosa was so scared he forgot how to speak english. Mcguire said nothing. Palmeiro lied. They all were too scared to admit to their steroid use. Why? BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE LAW.

 

So why wouldn't that be more egregious and easier to prove harm than stealing signals via video? Remember, signs are documented by hand and are still stolen EVERY game. The Patriots used a different tool to improve their chances on a play or two per game. Sure sounds like something that roids might help with as well. Certainly not fraudulent.

 

How about we bet on the outcome of the suit?

[Thornton Melon 549]

I have a hard time understanding why everyone thinks this is frivilous. If you read the article, they are sueing for the money that season ticket holders have spent on the games that the Patriots have played the Jets at Giants Stadium. Their basis is that the league has found and disciplined the Pats for cheating and that cheating amounts to a fraud perpetrated on the fans who paid to see a fair football contest. Because there is fraud involved, the law allows for trebble damages, basically triple the amount of actual damages. Sorry, but this thing has legs. They have every right to try and prove in a court of law that they are victems of fraud at the hands of the Pats. Will they win? I doubt it, but the case will be heard most likely in Jersey where there are a ton of Jets fans. The biggest thing this involves, if allowed to move forward, is the discovery phase. The lawyers will be able to dipose anyone they want from the Pats organization past and present as well as the league offices. These dispositions are under the penalty of perjury. The court could also allow them access to any and all team offices and records, as well a league offices and film to look for evidence to cheating. I believe this suit has been brought because the league has swept it under the rug. Noone believes that everything that happened has been discovered. There has been no explanation on what the Pats were doing with several open frequencies instead of the one allowed. Most people believe they have been doing this for years and a Jets fan is taking a stand and attempting to try and find out what really has been going on since the league won't. People have sued and won in the country for much less than this. Remember the league has already found the Pats guilty of cheating. You don't think that will carry weight in a court of law? Now its up to those bringing the case to prove it in a court of law which certainly won't be easy but alot a damning things that the league did not want out could be revealed!

 

Get this through your head - This "case" belongs nowhere near a court of law. Get over it.

 

Jackie Chiles himself wouldn't touch this one....

[idiotekniQues 0]

im a giants fan as i am suing their entire secondary for the f'in mental anguish they put me through on any given sunday!

 

85 million buckaroooos!

[Moonpies 0]

Get this through your head - This "case" belongs nowhere near a court of law. Get over it.

 

Jackie Chiles himself wouldn't touch this one....

 

Thats your opinion. I have a different one. Now its up to a judge to decide not you or me! If a judge refuses to dismiss it, all hells going to break loose as they pry into every nook and crany of the cheater's organization looking for proof. Something just tells me a New Jersey judge won't just dismiss it. The fact that the league found them guilty of cheating may be all a judge needs to allow the case to move forward. Can they prove damages and win? Thats a whole different story than merely allowing the case to go forward and allowing the plaintiffs to dipose Belicheat, Kraft, and anyone else from the past 8 years that may have knowledge of deep they were cheating. I still haven't heard an explanation of why they were using multiple open frequencies instead of the league mandated one frequency. That had to be a whole other layer of cheating going on that the league just swept under the rug. If a judge allows this case to go forward maybe we will finally find out. I'm glad someone out there isn't taking it and has decided to go after the truth. Get THAT through your head!!!!!

[Thornton Melon 549]

Thats your opinion. I have a different one. Now its up to a judge to decide not you or me! If a judge refuses to dismiss it, all hells going to break loose as they pry into every nook and crany of the cheater's organization looking for proof. Something just tells me a New Jersey judge won't just dismiss it. The fact that the league found them guilty of cheating may be all a judge needs to allow the case to move forward. Can they prove damages and win? Thats a whole different story than merely allowing the case to go forward and allowing the plaintiffs to dipose Belicheat, Kraft, and anyone else from the past 8 years that may have knowledge of deep they were cheating. I still haven't heard an explanation of why they were using multiple open frequencies instead of the league mandated one frequency. That had to be a whole other layer of cheating going on that the league just swept under the rug. If a judge allows this case to go forward maybe we will finally find out. I'm glad someone out there isn't taking it and has decided to go after the truth. Get THAT through your head!!!!!

 

All that's going through my head is that I can't believe any sane adult would actually believe that this case should move forward.

 

Let me ask you point blank - if you were the judge, would you allow this case to go forward?

[Moonpies 0]

All that's going through my head is that I can't believe any sane adult would actually believe that this case should move forward.

 

Let me ask you point blank - if you were the judge, would you allow this case to go forward?

 

To allow fans of a team to attempt to recover the cost of tickets for a game in which the league has already found cheating occured, sure I'd allow it to move forward IF they presented a sound arguement. Now, do I think they will be able to meet the burden of proof and actually be awarded any money? Probably not. But to say they don't even have the right to present their case in court is foolish to me. The league has already found that the Pats cheated. The fans certainly should have the right to argue they have been defrauded out of the cost of those tickets which were represented to be for a fair and honest football game. I am not saying I think they will win any money. I am merely arguing that i don't consider it frivilous and I think they should be allowed the chance to prove their case in court.

[Fozzy4 0]

This person is an idiot. He claims, "you can't deceive customers!" Every commercial ever made, every cheap used car salesman on earth and basically everything involving money has the sole purpose of deceiving customers. You could take all the Jets fans and their lives would not be worth $1 million.

 

There's a difference here - commercials don't outright lie, they simply give you a chance to make incorrect conclusions. A hot babe appears on a beer add, implying that you get women if you drink this beer. No one says it, or even anything close, but many people make that connection when seeing the commercial. It isn't said, because it would be fraud if they say it and it isn't actually true! In this case, though, the NFL has strict rules under which games must be played, and in buying a ticket to a game we expect to see a game played under those precise rules. If it isn't, then you weren't mislead, you were outright lied to - what you bought is simply not what you got. The NFL has already said the Pats breached the rules, so there is plenty of legal footing for the notion of fraud.

 

A similar example might be if you bought a movie ticket, but were shown a movie other than what you paid to see. It's still a movie, and in that sense is quite like what you paid to see... and yet it isn't what you paid to see. Same thing here - The Pats breaching the rules makes the show something other than what the people all paid to see, and that makes it fraud. Yet another example is if you discovered a casino you frequented using loaded dice. The casino has gained an unfair advantage! You would cry foul and demand your money back, plus you might seriously consider suing them, b/c you paid to play a fair game of craps. Why, then, shouldn't you also demand your money back when you discover an NFL team has gained an illegal advantage???

 

I have a hard time understanding why everyone thinks this is frivilous. If you read the article, they are sueing for the money that season ticket holders have spent on the games that the Patriots have played the Jets at Giants Stadium. Their basis is that the league has found and disciplined the Pats for cheating and that cheating amounts to a fraud perpetrated on the fans who paid to see a fair football contest. Because there is fraud involved, the law allows for trebble damages, basically triple the amount of actual damages. Sorry, but this thing has legs. They have every right to try and prove in a court of law that they are victems of fraud at the hands of the Pats. Will they win? I doubt it, but the case will be heard most likely in Jersey where there are a ton of Jets fans. The biggest thing this involves, if allowed to move forward, is the discovery phase. The lawyers will be able to dipose anyone they want from the Pats organization past and present as well as the league offices. These dispositions are under the penalty of perjury. The court could also allow them access to any and all team offices and records, as well a league offices and film to look for evidence to cheating. I believe this suit has been brought because the league has swept it under the rug. Noone believes that everything that happened has been discovered. There has been no explanation on what the Pats were doing with several open frequencies instead of the one allowed. Most people believe they have been doing this for years and a Jets fan is taking a stand and attempting to try and find out what really has been going on since the league won't. People have sued and won in the country for much less than this. Remember the league has already found the Pats guilty of cheating. You don't think that will carry weight in a court of law? Now its up to those bringing the case to prove it in a court of law which certainly won't be easy but alot a damning things that the league did not want out could be revealed!

 

Amen, someone gets it.

 

So does that mean they can sue baseball teams for stealing signs? Cheating has been in sports forever and a simple case of spying still doesn't exactly change the result on the field--you still have to make the plays. I completely agree with the commish's actions and discipline.

 

As far as I know stealing signs in baseball is not against the rules of the game. Provided that is the case, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. A substantial portion of this suit rests on the fact that the Patriots violated the rules of the game, not simply that they gained a competitive edge by stealing signals. We expect teams to try to get an edge, but it's the violation of the game rules in that process that they are suggesting makes this fraud.

 

Really? So Palmeiro and Sosa were prosecuted for those actions? Hmm. I must have missed that. You obviously DON'T follow sports because I don't think that Palmeiro was scared sh!tless at all as he was waving his finger at Congress telling them that he did not do steroids. McGwire said nothing, so don't even try to say that they were scared.

 

The point is that baseball players have "defrauded" the fans for years and there is no suit forthcoming. Merriman did the same thing with his steroid use. It is not an actionable item with actual damages. This is some sore loser fan trying to make headlines and a name for himself. This is not someone who is standing up for their beliefs.

 

"Actual damages?" What the heck is that supposed to mean? People sue for mental anguish, and you certainly can't label that an "actual damage" under any reasonable way to measure it. If you are thinking property damage then no that is not what is implied, and in this case we are talking more than likely about the degradation of the performances during those Patriot-Jet games. One direction could be to suggest that the Patriots' actions caused the Jets to not perform as well in those games (due to the Jets having unfair knowledge of their communications, and thus advance knowledge of calls). From there, it is easy to say that Jets fans have been slighted as a result because their team would have performed better (and thus they would've enjoyed the games more) had the Patriots stayed within the rules. From that line of reasoning it is easy to suggest that all affected games have been detracted from by the Patriots' cheating, and that clearly goes to fraud.

 

It's also worth noting that civil cases have much more lax requirements on evidence. A criminal suit needs to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - a civil suit, though, must only establish liability through a preponderance of evidence. 50% likelihood is all that's required, which basically means the court is asked if it seems likely that the Patriots are responsible for fraud against Jets ticket holders. So while it is not likely this case could win in any sort of criminal proceeding, it needs only to establish that fraud is likely, which is something that definitely could happen.

[OuttaLuck 0]

a lady won millions from mcdonalds for being a piece of sh_t dumbass for putting coffee in between her legs and suing for millions when she got burned when it spilled. "I didn't know it was that hot". bulls_t, it is f-ing coffee, wen were you told it was cold? Our legal system sucks when this kind of bullsh_t can happen and if that crap can happen then I am not certain that the crack hoes and other ingnorant f_cks that will end up on this jury wont end up awarding this retard the millions that he seeks. I think I am going to sue all trial lawyers for the millions of dollars in cases they cost the system with their piece of crap lawsuits.

 

You should try to know and understand the facts before using the famous (or infamous) McDonald's coffee case as a basis to lambast our legal system. Here's one article that may help you:

 

By O'Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C.

 

Ask anyone about the McDonald's Coffee Cup Lawsuit and chances are they'll tell you they have heard of it - a woman spills a cup of coffee on her lap and gets big bucks in court. This is the part of the story that insurance companies and certain members of the business community want us to remember. It helps them argue that you can't trust the court system and it continues to poison the opinions of people who are called to serve on juries.

 

But what really happened in the McDonald's case? Why did members of the jury who were first extremely angry about having to sit and listen to this case later turn their anger on McDonald's and award money to the Plaintiff? Why did the Wall Street Journal say McDonald's was callous about the matter? Why did the New York Times recently expose this case as a misrepresentation of what really happened. New York Times, 6/4/94. Here are the McFACTS:

 

McFact #1: For years McDonald's knew that their 1850 coffee was served at least 200 hotter than at other restaurants. They insisted on it, and even though more than 700 other people had made claims for scalding coffee burns in the previous ten years, McDonald's never consulted a burn expert and didn't lower the temperature.

 

McFact #2: 79-year old Stella Liebeck was not driving in a car when she was injured. In fact, she was not driving at all. She had gone with her grandson, Chris, to take her son, Jim, to the airport. On the way home, Chris pulled into a McDonald's drive-thru for breakfast. He parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Here's what happened next: Because the car had no cup holders and a slanted dash, Stella testified that she put the cup between her knees and removed the lid. As she did so, the slick styrofoam cup flipped backwards, dumping the scalding liquid into her lap and saturated the cotton sweatsuit which she was wearing. Her grandson, Chris, jumped out to help but the near boiling coffee was already searing her skin. By the time Chris was able to bring his grandmother to the emergency room, she had third degree burns across her groin, thighs, genitalia and buttocks. Stella Liebeck was badly wounded. She says all she remembers is the pain.

 

McFact #3: Stella spent 7 days in the hospital. She then spent another 3 weeks confined to her home where her daughter travelled to take care of her. After that, she required another hospital stay for skin grafts. She went from 113 to 83 pounds and for a time her family doubted if she would survive.

 

McFact #4: Initially, Stella's family only asked McDonald's for her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000 plus her daughter's lost wages. McDonald's offered only $800.

 

McFact #5: A McDonald's Quality Control manager testified that McDonald's knew of the risk of dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers, even though most customers wouldn't be aware of the scalding danger.

 

McFact #6: Another McDonald's corporate witness testified that they had received 700 complaints prior to this accident.

 

McFact #7: Only after McDonald's refused to raise its offer above $800, Stella's lawyer filed suit. He asked for $100,000 in compensatory damages including her pain and suffering and triple punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's that their coffee was dangerously hot.

 

McFact #8: A month later, the judge reduced the jury's punitive award of $2.7 million to only $640,000 reasoning that this amount was approximately 3 times the compensatory damages. He said the case "was not a runaway, I was there," and that it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonald's corporate coffee policy.

 

McFact #9: McDonald's still has not gotten the lesson and lowered the temperature of its coffee. A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, states that after Stella Liebeck burned herself in this case a 73-year old woman suffered first and second degree burns when a cup of McDonald's coffee spilled on her lap. This report indicated that McDonald's still keeps its coffee at 1800, still 200 hotter than other restaurants.

 

Here's another article on the same case:

 

by Andrea Gerlin

Staff Reporter

September 1, 1994

The Wall Street Journal

(© 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

 

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.

 

It should have been a warning.

 

But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

 

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."

 

McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

 

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Since the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

 

Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.

 

Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."

 

Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."

 

Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of Americans - including many who typically support the little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls from citizens around the country.

 

It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

 

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

 

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

 

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

 

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

 

Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.

 

For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

 

Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

 

Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.

 

As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

 

But McDonald's didn't bite.

 

Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

 

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

 

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

 

The testimony of Mr. 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."

 

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

 

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.

 

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

 

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

 

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

 

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

 

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming.

 

__________________________

 

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

Puts things in a new perspective, perhaps?

 

Anyway, my basic point is at least try to understand and know facts before you launch a salvo or digress to an uninformed diatribe. I agree that thus far the class action lawsuit against the Pats appears to be pretty silly, but I'm tired of seeing the McDonald's case used as support for claims of spurious lawsuits and of people purportedly citing sources or facts when they don't KNOW the facts. The McDonald's coffee case is a perfect example. OK, rant over.

[Pimptaddy 0]

You should try to know and understand the facts before using the famous (or infamous) McDonald's coffee case as a basis to lambast our legal system. Here's one article that may help you:

 

By O'Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C.

 

Ask anyone about the McDonald's Coffee Cup Lawsuit and chances are they'll tell you they have heard of it - a woman spills a cup of coffee on her lap and gets big bucks in court. This is the part of the story that insurance companies and certain members of the business community want us to remember. It helps them argue that you can't trust the court system and it continues to poison the opinions of people who are called to serve on juries.

 

But what really happened in the McDonald's case? Why did members of the jury who were first extremely angry about having to sit and listen to this case later turn their anger on McDonald's and award money to the Plaintiff? Why did the Wall Street Journal say McDonald's was callous about the matter? Why did the New York Times recently expose this case as a misrepresentation of what really happened. New York Times, 6/4/94. Here are the McFACTS:

 

McFact #1: For years McDonald's knew that their 1850 coffee was served at least 200 hotter than at other restaurants. They insisted on it, and even though more than 700 other people had made claims for scalding coffee burns in the previous ten years, McDonald's never consulted a burn expert and didn't lower the temperature.

 

McFact #2: 79-year old Stella Liebeck was not driving in a car when she was injured. In fact, she was not driving at all. She had gone with her grandson, Chris, to take her son, Jim, to the airport. On the way home, Chris pulled into a McDonald's drive-thru for breakfast. He parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Here's what happened next: Because the car had no cup holders and a slanted dash, Stella testified that she put the cup between her knees and removed the lid. As she did so, the slick styrofoam cup flipped backwards, dumping the scalding liquid into her lap and saturated the cotton sweatsuit which she was wearing. Her grandson, Chris, jumped out to help but the near boiling coffee was already searing her skin. By the time Chris was able to bring his grandmother to the emergency room, she had third degree burns across her groin, thighs, genitalia and buttocks. Stella Liebeck was badly wounded. She says all she remembers is the pain.

 

McFact #3: Stella spent 7 days in the hospital. She then spent another 3 weeks confined to her home where her daughter travelled to take care of her. After that, she required another hospital stay for skin grafts. She went from 113 to 83 pounds and for a time her family doubted if she would survive.

 

McFact #4: Initially, Stella's family only asked McDonald's for her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000 plus her daughter's lost wages. McDonald's offered only $800.

 

McFact #5: A McDonald's Quality Control manager testified that McDonald's knew of the risk of dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers, even though most customers wouldn't be aware of the scalding danger.

 

McFact #6: Another McDonald's corporate witness testified that they had received 700 complaints prior to this accident.

 

McFact #7: Only after McDonald's refused to raise its offer above $800, Stella's lawyer filed suit. He asked for $100,000 in compensatory damages including her pain and suffering and triple punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's that their coffee was dangerously hot.

 

McFact #8: A month later, the judge reduced the jury's punitive award of $2.7 million to only $640,000 reasoning that this amount was approximately 3 times the compensatory damages. He said the case "was not a runaway, I was there," and that it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonald's corporate coffee policy.

 

McFact #9: McDonald's still has not gotten the lesson and lowered the temperature of its coffee. A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, states that after Stella Liebeck burned herself in this case a 73-year old woman suffered first and second degree burns when a cup of McDonald's coffee spilled on her lap. This report indicated that McDonald's still keeps its coffee at 1800, still 200 hotter than other restaurants.

 

Here's another article on the same case:

 

by Andrea Gerlin

Staff Reporter

September 1, 1994

The Wall Street Journal

(© 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

 

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.

 

It should have been a warning.

 

But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

 

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naïve. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."

 

McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

 

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Since the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

 

Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.

 

Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."

 

Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."

 

Public opinion is squarely on the side of McDonald's. Polls have shown a large majority of Americans - including many who typically support the little guy - to be outraged at the verdict. And radio talk-show hosts around the country have lambasted the plaintiff, her attorneys and the jurors on air. Declining to be interviewed for this story, one juror explained that he already had received angry calls from citizens around the country.

 

It's a reaction that many of the jurors could have understood - before they heard the evidence. At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

 

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

 

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

 

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

 

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

 

Then there was the matter of Mrs. Liebeck's attorney. While recuperating from her injuries in the Santa Fe home of her daughter, Mrs. Liebeck happened to meet a pair of Texas transplants familiar with a Houston attorney who had handled a 1986 hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald's. His name was Reed Morgan, and ever since he had deeply believed that McDonald's coffee is too hot.

 

For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk…and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.

 

Now, plotting Mrs. Liebeck's case, Mr. Morgan planned to introduce photographs of his previous client's injuries and those of a California woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald's employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle in 1990, a case that was settled out of court for $230,000.

 

Tracy McGee of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, the lawyers for McDonald's, strenuously objected. "First-person accounts by sundry women whose nether regions have been scorched by McDonald's coffee might well be worthy of Oprah," she wrote in a motion to state court Judge Robert Scott. "But they have no place in a court of law." Judge Scott did not allow the photographs nor the women's testimony into evidence, but said Mr. Morgan could mention the cases.

 

As the trial date approached, McDonald's declined to settle. At one point, Mr. Morgan says he offered to drop the case for $300,000, and was willing to accept half that amount.

 

But McDonald's didn't bite.

 

Only days before the trial, Judge Scott ordered both sides to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, saying a jury would be likely to award that amount. The company didn't follow his recommendation.

 

Instead, McDonald's continued denying any liability for Mrs. Liebeck's burns. The company suggested that she may have contributed to her injuries by holding the cup between her legs and not removing her clothing immediately. And it also argued that "Mrs. Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.

 

The trial lasted seven sometimes mind-numbing days. Experts dueled over the temperature at which coffee causes burns. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns, so it didn't matter whether Mc Donald's coffee was hotter. But a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

 

The testimony of Mr. 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."

 

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

 

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.

 

When the panel reached the jury room, it swiftly arrived at the conclusion that McDonald's was liable. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," says Ms. Farnham. "They were not taking care of their consumers."

 

Then the six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.

 

The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

 

McDonald's has since asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott has asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he rules on McDonald's request. The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages.

 

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 degrees. But industry officials say they doubt that this signals any companywide change. After all, in a series of focus groups last year, customers who buy McDonald's coffee at least weekly say that "morning coffee has minimal taste requirements, but must be hot," to the point of steaming.

 

__________________________

 

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Prior to the Liebeck case, the prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

Puts things in a new perspective, perhaps?

 

Anyway, my basic point is at least try to understand and know facts before you launch a salvo or digress to an uninformed diatribe. I agree that thus far the class action lawsuit against the Pats appears to be pretty silly, but I'm tired of seeing the McDonald's case used as support for claims of spurious lawsuits and of people purportedly citing sources or facts when they don't KNOW the facts. The McDonald's coffee case is a perfect example. OK, rant over.

 

 

Brevity is the soul of wit