Luntz Watch: The McDonald’s Myth
Luntz Watch: The McDonald’s Myth
[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]
From, “more words that work” on lawsuit abuse reform:
“We all remember the McDonald’s lawsuit…millions paid out to a woman who, at a drive-through window, spilled coffee on her lap that was – go figure – HOT!”
FACT: As a result of her injuries, 79 year old Stella Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years
FACT: Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald’s countered by offering her $800.
FACT: The original, $2.7 million award was equal to two days of McDonald’s corporation coffee sales.
FACT: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
FACT: During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good post! Some research into this and other myths and how they are spread, incuding a look at the right-wing organizations behind the tort reform drive and their funding, can be found in the report The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law.
February 23rd, 2005 at 12:43 pmThis is a particular “favorite” of mind. As I’m sure it is a favorite of the insurance industry. Every layman’s conversation on tort reform I have ever gotten into inevitably comes around to this story. Few have ever heard the real facts of the case. They just hear the distilled/outrageous story.
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:16 pmMy ‘other’ senator, Tom Carper of Delaware, voted for the Class Action Fairness Act — love the name! The local paper reported this and included several examples of presumably ‘unfair’ class actions. One was the suit brought against Poland Spring water — that was in Illinois, according to my paper. I’ve seen this example quoted before — consumers supposedly argued the water was neither pure nor from a spring. The settlement called for coupons for discounts on PS water and the attorneys got 1.35 million. The company admitted no wrongdoing and isn’t changing the way it bottles or markets the water.
What exactly are the facts about that case?
I also find it odd that a company can so seriously misrepresent its product and consumers have to sue in an effort to make the company practice truth in advertising — yet they fail, according to this report. Aren’t there federal regulations about this? And why should the federal government wait until consumers sue before considering protecting them from lying manufacturers and potentially dangerous products?
I’m also sometimes just baffled by the apparent attitude of people toward those who sue and win their case — the idea that these people don’t deserve remuneration is so puzzling to me. I feel certain that many of the same people who have contempt for consumers who sue buy lottery tickets and think that winning would be just fine.
February 23rd, 2005 at 6:09 pmI’m sorry but even as an out-and-out flaming liberal like myself, I find this one goes too far. And it’s always — always! — presented in the same way: the case sounds stupid but if you only knew the facts! …
And then you read the fact (yet again) and it’s still stupid.
I’d say drop it, boys, while you’re still ahead. There’s no need to defend every law suit there’s even been — especially when it makes you look rediculous.
– a real friend!
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:42 pmThere was another fact left out. McDonalds sold their coffee at 180 degrees. This is significantly higher than typical coffee. (Most home water heaters are set between 125 and 150. 125 will cause blisters in a few seconds.) The reason is that they sell cheap coffee and it smells better when it is sold extra hot. Coffee is sold hot and people expect that. They should not have been selling coffee to go that can cause third degree burns.
February 23rd, 2005 at 10:49 pmI just made a bowl of spaghetti that if it I had been carrying it on my head and it dropped spilling its content onto my shoulds, would have required a trip to the hospital.
This “oh but if they only knew the facts” in this case is completely lame.
I was against the law they passed against Class Action Law suits because I agree that it’s one of the protections that we have to keep corporations in line.
That said, I can still recognize how much justifying the McDonalds case is a total loser. It doesn’t pass the laugh test — when all the facts are known!
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 pmi agree with leo. we need a batter strategy. don’t talk about the McDonald’s case.
Talk about Enron. Talk about Tobacco companies. Talk about examples where the companies BLATANTLY screwed up, and the ONLY WAY TO CATCH THEM WAS A LAWSUIT.
we might get better mileage out of that.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:22 amWell, actually, I had believed the myth up until now and I’m reasonably convinced the case is valid. I used to work in a coffee shop and we served espresso drinks at around 160F . I think your 180F estimate is too low, actually. Apparently, McDonalds was serving the coffee at a temperature much higher than boiling point. I’m sorry but I don’t believe any of the coffee we served was anywhere near causing third degree burns. Not even if you dumped all of it on someone.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:15 amI THINK SHE IS STUPIED FOR DOING THAT
December 12th, 2005 at 1:02 pmL0Z3R
December 12th, 2005 at 1:05 pm*guys
December 12th, 2005 at 1:06 pm