Hey, it's time for the Stella Awards !!!!

It's time again for the annual "Stella Awards".

For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico , where she purchased coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving. Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right? That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.

Here are the Stellas for year -- 2012:

• SEVENTH PLACE *

Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

• SIXTH PLACE *

Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

• FIFTH PLACE *

Terrence Dickson, of Bristol , Pennsylvania , who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental Anguish. Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish Keep scratching. There are more...

• FOURTH PLACE *

Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

• THIRD PLACE *

Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

SECOND PLACE

Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure.

Ok. Here we go!!

Oh Brother, can you believe this?

• FIRST PLACE *

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was: Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mphand calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down?

$1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

Having not read the rest of the post, your first line is extra-wrong. The coffee was not just hot, it was literally boiling hot when it was poured - the McDonalds had either intentionally altered, or failed to perform necessary maintenance on, the coffee maker thermostat, thus allowing the coffee to exceed the boiling point of water. There is speculation that they did this intentionally because people in general like hot coffee, so they made it extra hot. Regardless of why it got that way, the heat caused the lid to deform, and fail. The skin that got burnt (in her pubic area), was burned so badly that it peeled off, not just blistered, but literally fell off. She needed several surgeries to repair this. McDonalds did a great PR job in spinning this into a "litigation happy nation" argument, versus a "Our neglegence caused a womans vagina to fall off" argument...

sorry to burst your bubble...

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html

This website looks kinda cheap but it claims those suites are fabricated...

Agreed. And I'm going to bet the rest of those have similar "spin" to them that makes them seem rediculous and wrong but the reality is probably somewhere in between. I'm not saying there isn't rampant abuse in the court system just that the 1 case people like to trumpet as the example (the Mcdonalds coffee case) was one that most definately wasn't abuse.

Well, in honesty, most of that was coming from memory , from a business law class (we spent about a week on this topic). Maybe I shouldve googled the crap out of it before I posted. Im sure Im fuzzy on some of the specifics.

Bottom line though, this was not just some shinny happy hole looking for a free buck, this was a suit that came about as a result of a pretty serious injury.

It is really hard to have something still boiling after removing heat. Was that a pressurized cup or something?

From a link found in the Snopes page dismissing the OP's list:

http://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts

Now for the facts: Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases. Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement. Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial: + McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. + Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds. + The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty. + McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits. + An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year. + At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.” + McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. + McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature. + McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.” That’s because those jurors were able to hear all the facts — including those presented by McDonald’s — and see the extent of Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Ask anyone who criticizes the case as a “frivolous lawsuit” that resulted in “jackpot justice” if they have done the same.

The part that reads "oh brother, can you believe this?" Makes me think of an email a geriatric family member forwards around...

Joey

I find this one hard to believe:

Stellaawards.com said:

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

CAOC.org - link above said:

• McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

So, one "expert" onthe topic of how cofee should be served says 185° is acceptable, medical professionals and McD management says that at that temp, youll hurt yourself. WTF?

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, in honesty, most of that was coming from memory , from a business law class (we spent about a week on this topic). Maybe I shouldve googled the crap out of it before I posted. Im sure Im fuzzy on some of the specifics. Bottom line though, this was not just some shinny happy hole looking for a free buck, this was a suit that came about as a result of a pretty serious injury.

No it was just some shiny happy hole with no sense of personal responsibility. McDonalds didn't cause her burns, she did. And that case set a precedence that opened up an entire era of bogus law suits that still continues.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

Not to get too involved with this thread, but I find the stellaawards claim about coffee pretty questionable. Everything I've seen about coffee is that it's brewed at NO HIGHER than 195, or it's really bitter, and stored lower than that, or it goes off and is unplesant tasting quite quickly. The best method is to start at 195, pour over grounds, and let sit for 4 min. At the end of that- no way it's still that hot.

So I can't see the National Coffee Association recommending temperatures that ruin the product they represent. That's very questionable.

And I know if I tried to drink something that was 195, my mouth would be totally burnt. badly. as in skin hanging down from the roof of my mouth.

So I'll call BS on the claims, too.

Not sure how I saw the pictures of Stella- having known more about it, I'm on her side, too.

bravenrace wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, in honesty, most of that was coming from memory , from a business law class (we spent about a week on this topic). Maybe I shouldve googled the crap out of it before I posted. Im sure Im fuzzy on some of the specifics. Bottom line though, this was not just some shinny happy hole looking for a free buck, this was a suit that came about as a result of a pretty serious injury.

No it was just some shiny happy hole with no sense of personal responsibility. McDonalds didn't cause her burns, she did. And that case set a precedence that opened up an entire era of bogus law suits that still continues.

See, that's where you need to read the jury report- they also said that it was her fault that she spilled. But it should not have resulted in 3rd degree burns + this wasn't even close to the first complaint + McD was very dismissive of it. Resulting in penalties to McD for not addressing it.

That's the point of THAT kind of damage rewards.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: Not to get too involved with this thread, but I find the stellaawards claim about coffee pretty questionable. Everything I've seen about coffee is that it's brewed at NO HIGHER than 195, or it's really bitter, and stored lower than that, or it goes off and is unplesant tasting quite quickly. The best method is to start at 195, pour over grounds, and let sit for 4 min. At the end of that- no way it's still that hot. So I can't see the National Coffee Association recommending temperatures that ruin the product they represent. That's very questionable. And I know if I tried to drink something that was 195, my mouth would be totally burnt. badly. as in skin hanging down from the roof of my mouth. So I'll call BS on the claims, too. Not sure how I saw the pictures of Stella- having known more about it, I'm on her side, too.

'course if you're making percolated coffee (some of us still do) then it's going to be brewed at higher temp than that

wbjones wrote:

alfadriver wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: Not to get too involved with this thread, but I find the stellaawards claim about coffee pretty questionable. Everything I've seen about coffee is that it's brewed at NO HIGHER than 195, or it's really bitter, and stored lower than that, or it goes off and is unplesant tasting quite quickly. The best method is to start at 195, pour over grounds, and let sit for 4 min. At the end of that- no way it's still that hot. So I can't see the National Coffee Association recommending temperatures that ruin the product they represent. That's very questionable. And I know if I tried to drink something that was 195, my mouth would be totally burnt. badly. as in skin hanging down from the roof of my mouth. So I'll call BS on the claims, too. Not sure how I saw the pictures of Stella- having known more about it, I'm on her side, too.

'course if you're making percolated coffee (some of us still do) then it's going to be brewed at higher temp than that

Which isn't the optimum way to brew coffee. Everything I've read about making coffee is not to get it hotter than 195, let alone boiling it. I'm pretty sure the "NCA" would not say it's the best way of making coffee.

BTW, why are you running a percolator? I've not seen those for decades. Everyone uses drip machines now. And even the best of the best of those struggle to get high enough water temps to brew (they can heat what's left too well, though).

joey48442 wrote: The part that reads "oh brother, can you believe this?" Makes me think of an email a geriatric family member forwards around... Joey

I put it up for its entertainment value.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: Not to get too involved with this thread, but I find the stellaawards claim about coffee pretty questionable. Everything I've seen about coffee is that it's brewed at NO HIGHER than 195, or it's really bitter, and stored lower than that, or it goes off and is unplesant tasting quite quickly. The best method is to start at 195, pour over grounds, and let sit for 4 min. At the end of that- no way it's still that hot. So I can't see the National Coffee Association recommending temperatures that ruin the product they represent. That's very questionable. And I know if I tried to drink something that was 195, my mouth would be totally burnt. badly. as in skin hanging down from the roof of my mouth. So I'll call BS on the claims, too. Not sure how I saw the pictures of Stella- having known more about it, I'm on her side, too.

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

According to this, the National Coffee Association says between 195 and 205.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Wow. So I'm wrong. Now I know if I ever start growing coffee, not to join them, since they would ruin the product I make.

But I'd never brew coffee that hot- when I have, it doesn't taste all that good. And I would never store it that hot- not only could nobody drink it, it would also go bad a lot quicker.

Oh, well. learn something new and surpising every day.

In reply to alfadriver:

I don't agree. She spilled it, not McDonalds. If she shot herself, would it be the fault of the gun manufacturer? Or if someone hands you something and says "hey, don't do this, it might hurt you" and you do it, is it their fault? What? You say McDonalds didn't tell her the coffee was hot? Exactly my point. Coffee is hot. Any person with a brain larger than a number 2 pencil eraser knows that.

The first place winner is an old one, just reworded. That story has been told over and over again.

The original was because of the drive set the cruise and went to take a nap, or something like that.

I've seen this same list on the interwebs before, like 5 years ago. Same lawsuits every year?

Did you see that another woman is suing McD's for getting burnt by their coffee in Australia? Read it this morning, can't find link now.

joey48442 wrote: The part that reads "oh brother, can you believe this?" Makes me think of an email a geriatric family member forwards around... Joey

+1000 on that. I'm sure I'll get this one from my dad tonight, and from one of the old guys at work, and from the wife of a retired friend, etc., etc.

And the #1 thing is an urban legend in itself. Heard that joke for the first time 10+ years ago.

bravenrace wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, in honesty, most of that was coming from memory , from a business law class (we spent about a week on this topic). Maybe I shouldve googled the crap out of it before I posted. Im sure Im fuzzy on some of the specifics. Bottom line though, this was not just some shinny happy hole looking for a free buck, this was a suit that came about as a result of a pretty serious injury.

No it was just some shiny happy hole with no sense of personal responsibility. McDonalds didn't cause her burns, she did. And that case set a precedence that opened up an entire era of bogus law suits that still continues.

Please see jury notes above:

• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

Thats the smoking gun right there. McD's says: "Here, customer, is something for you to drink. This is meant to go into your body". BUUuuuut , Internally, to each other, they say: "KEKEKEKE, but if they do it, their face will melt off LULZ....oh well, the ball is in their court now," [washes hands]

There is a very broad grey area between shower water that is considered "hot", and Coffee that can remove your face...If you told me my coffee was hot, Id think "good, I like hot coffee", thinking that it would be a peppy 105°. If you handed me a cup of face remover at nearly twice that, and said that it was "hot", without including anything about the possibility of incredible personal injury, well then, I think you and I would have a bit of a discussion coming...

IMHO, nothing sold to the general public for the sole purpose of human consumption should be capable of generating a 3rd degree burn. End of story. The fact that they sold food, capable of melting off your skin, is negligent, regardless of why it got onto your skin.

Everyone who thinks that Stella Liebeck was at fault should see the documentary "Hot Coffee". (http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/)

Did you know that she was not driving, she was a passenger?
Did you know that they were parked when the incident occurred?
Did you know that she never wanted money, just a warning to others that coffee was hot enough to cause third degree burns?
Did you know that a jury of her peers (that's you and me people) awarded her WAY more than the judge eventually allowed?

I was firmly in the "that lady is an idiot" camp until I saw this movie. Now, I reserve judgement until I get all the facts.

Did she open it in her own lap and spill it? Unless the answer is no, then IMO it was her fault. Period. You may disagree. That's just fine with me. I take responsibility for my own actions, so I expect others to do that also. If I trip over a toy at someones home and break my leg, it's my fault because I wasn't looking where I was going. If I spill hot anything in my own lap, it's my fault. It's really very simple.