Bells
Staff member
People usually laugh because they are so gullible as to believe everything they read on dodgy made up sites on the internet.
All who laugh, all who usually post about it without knowing the actual facts, usually stop laughing when they look at what this woman actually suffered and when they find out that McDonalds had received reports, complaints and other suits from over 700 people prior to her, all of whom suffered serious burns and injury due to their coffee. Now certainly, people can feel sorry for large corporations who offered a woman who had suffered horrific injuries due to how they were making one of their products, $800. I mean poor them, right? She asked just enough to cover her medical costs. This woman was injured so badly that she required treatment, surgeries and was sick for over 7 years. Those burns were horrific. She wasn't out for whatever she could get. She asked for $20,000. She literally asked solely for just enough to cover her medical costs. She was awarded more because her burns were so bad. And that's what people forget or simply don't realise. She did not sue for millions of dollars.
Which has what to do with a woman who suffered full thickness burns, required years of treatment and surgery and was permanently scarred and who sued for just enough to cover her medical costs and ongoing treatment that such burns require, which amounted to $20,000? She never sought to enrich herself or make money from it. Did you look at her burns? At all?
She asked for just twenty thousand dollars. She was awarded $2 million by the jury (an amount that was worth 2 days of coffee sales by McDonalds) and it was then brought down to just under $500,000 and then McDonalds agreed to a private settlement after the trial, which would have been for less than that, which she accepted. She didn't go out and try and make money. All she wanted was just enough to cover her medical bills after McDonalds offered her less than $800.
So what does her case have to do with people who tried to enrich themselves from companies? Less believing and buying into dodgy sites that more often than not, make up cases and more looking into real cases..
The warning labels were too small to see or read. And there was no warning that the fumes from the product could explode. The actual case, as in the actual court case, goes into much more detail. No, it was not sitting on the water heater. The water heater was in another room. No, the can itself did not ignite when the water heater in the next room flicked on. The fumes from the product exploded after the water heater in the next room flicked on. The flame wasn't even in the same room as they and the can of glue were. Their own quality assurance officer testified that the company knew the vapors and fumes were explosive. There was no warning on the can about this. A passage from the actual court case:
And if you read the court documents, it details how Para-Chem had altered its warning labels about how the vapors and fumes could travel and that pilot lights and any naked flames had to be extinguished because its vapors were explosive, with the new labels detailing none of it and its dangers of exploding... And the new label was so small, people could not read it and placed on a panel that few people even read. That is why they were awarded the damages they were given.
You know, I get the disdain against frivolous lawsuits. I am one of the people who hates them. But at the very least, I research my cases properly instead of relying on made up sites that alter the facts because they want it to support something they are trying to convey.
And that is all I am going to say on the matter.
