Starbucks sued for $114 million over a freebie

[bull]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/284448_starbucks09.html 

And in a related story, "Chicken parts keep falling into neighborhood"

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0911raining-chickenparts11-ON.html

Sorry, I'm bored...

[Vainglory, Esq.]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

[bull]

Yea, you'd think winning a lawsuit over spilling McDonald's coffee on your own crotch would be an uphill battle too but we know how that ended.

[dodge freak]

Well McDonald's had drive though lane's and when they hand you your order it goes right over your lap. McDonald's knew people were drinking the coffee in their cars. That lady was in her 80's and lots of people hands shake at that age. I am glad she sued and won , now if I do the samething I will not get burn as bad cause the coffee is not served as hot. Its too bad somebody had to get hurt very bad and sue. McDonald's is not a mom and pop business, they spend millions just on marketing.

[6pkrunner]

Yeah - there's a whole alternate legal system for dealing with coupons. It is not legal tender nor an exchange of goods or services for goods or services. They will have to fight that on goodwill percieved agreement.
However the PR blackeye for Starbucks may be substantial.

[nh_mopar_fan]

what does the fact that McDonalds isn't a "mom and pop" business and what they spend on marketing have to do with a lawsuit over coffee?

Unbelievable.

[dodge freak]

Cause the amount of the money the lady received sounds like a whole lot and it is but McDonald's was able to deal with it and not go out of business. I think its wrong when a small business has one boo boo and get sue and lose everything. McDonald's need to get sue like that to wake them up-but it did not hurt them much dollar wise.

[Troy]

The McDonalds case is completely different as you're asking the company to protect a customer from themselves - impossible with the quality of idiots we have these days. If I were McDonalds I would have stopped selling coffee at the drive-through OR in to go cups just to protect the lazy, uncoordinated putzes who might actually burn themselves with HOT coffee while driving. It's coffee - if it isn't HOT then people would sue for you serving cold coffee and making them circle back around in the parking lot wasting valuable gas and time. I read an interesting article about insurance claims the other day that listed eating/drinking in the car as the reason for 25% of all accidents. This ranks much higher than talking on a cell phone. Way back in the old days if you a bit dim witted and poked a dinosaur with a stick to get its attention then you'd likely get eaten. This was considered "cleaning the gene pool" but now we try to keep these nuts alive. The same thinking back then would have someone suing the stick manufacturer for allowing it to be used in an unsafe manner. All future sticks would need to be extended by 14" just to hold the thousands of lines of disclaimers and proper use instructions. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

In this case, you aren't protecting the customer but refusing to honor a coupon sent via email. I can't agree with the corporation because their poor planning is what caused this mess (marketing was allowed to run with an idea without thinking of the consequences). I can't agree with the lawsuit though just because class action lawsuits are basically a huge scam. However, the way this will work (if the case even gets off the ground) is that the lawyers and Starbucks will settle for $30 million or something equally rediculous and the lawyers will immediately take their half. The "thousands" of angry, betrayed coupon holders will be provided with another coupon for approximately 12 cents and will happily buy a $5.95 coffee to redeem it just because they are "sticking it to those evil corporations". I think Starbucks was wrong in the way they handled the situation but this lawsuit is a joke. The plaintiff in this case deserves exactly one grande drink and then they should be banned from ever setting foot in another Starbucks.

As for the chicken parts - is there a magpie hunting season?

Troy

[Troy]

Cause the amount of the money the lady received sounds like a whole lot and it is but McDonald's was able to deal with it and not go out of business. I think its wrong when a small business has one boo boo and get sue and lose everything. McDonald's need to get sue like that to wake them up-but it did not hurt them much dollar wise.

I bet it did. Small business go out of business because of the same stupid, frivilous lawsuits. It shouldn't matter if they can "afford" it. That's being hypocritical. What happens when a small company avoids lawsuits until they become a big company? When do your standards change? There's a reason that companies don't want to make/sell products here in America. People have no clue that they are harming themselves with this kind of thing. Insurance rates, prescription drugs, cars, medical and dental expenses, tools, software, and even food all has a built-in cost associated with lawsuits purely to protect the companies. Everything you buy costs more because you're proud when someone takes advantage of the system. Of course, then the companies are the "bad guys" for raising prices to recoup their loss. Just like government programs, the money has to come from somewhere and it's usually out of the pocket of everyone else.

Troy

[dodge freak]

 They are still making tons of money. That lady was not stupid she was old. Hopefully we all be old one day. Old people hands shake, and yes eatting and driving slows traffic down and causes accidents but not one fast food place has been sue because of their drive though lanes. If McDonald's doesn't agree with the laws here in the USA they can close up shop. Don't worry there always be a place you can drive up to a window and get a cup of coffee. And McDonald's isn't closing up either they are making lots of money here in the USA.

As for Starbucks lawsuit I think its a joke. Nobody got hurt and does anybody think a company would just give you a free anything. If they do great but if not so what. How did that hurt anybody.

[Orange_Crush]

I thought I'd make a couple of points about the McDonald's case that bear mentioning because it pots the case in much more of a "grey area" and, for me, it actually gives it legitimacy.

Facts About the Case

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.

Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.

Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
McDonald's Attitude

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.


McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Damaging Testimony

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

According to The Wall Street Journal
A Jury of One's Peers

The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] 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.' "

The Journal quoted one juror, Jack Elliott, remarking after the trial that the case had been about such "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

The Journal story continued, "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."

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."

The Verdict

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

[nh_mopar_fan]

So, it's ok to sure McDonalds for tons of cash because they have it but if it were a small mom and pop, you wouldn't feel the same way?

What kind of twisted logic is that? Either the old lady had a legit reasont o sue or she didn't. It has nothing to do with whether the plaintiff had deep pockets. It's that kind of stupidity that created the system we have no where it's never anybodys fault and you always go after the people with the ability to pay.

[nh_mopar_fan]

They are still making tons of money. That lady was not stupid she was old. Hopefully we all be old one day. Old people hands shake, and yes eatting and driving slows traffic down and causes accidents but not one fast food place has been sue because of their drive though lanes. If McDonald's doesn't agree with the laws here in the USA they can close up shop. Don't worry there always be a place you can drive up to a window and get a cup of coffee. And McDonald's isn't closing up either they are making lots of money here in the USA.

As for Starbucks lawsuit I think its a joke. Nobody got hurt and does anybody think a company would just give you a free anything. If they do great but if not so what. How did that hurt anybody.

When you put a hot cup of coffee between your legs, that qualifies as stupid in my book.

Why do you insist on repeating this silly stuff about how much money McDonalds makes? Is making money a crime? Are they more at fault because they have the ability to pay?

WTF.

[dodge freak]

Yeah its not right but thats the way it is. A small business might not have the means to improve their product. Maybe I am wrong and if the samething happen to a mom and pop shop they should be sued out of business, but I don't agree with that. They are not wrong about making money but if they do like McDonald's does then they have the means and ability to protect their customers.

Thanks Orange Crush--you explained it better than I ever could.

[defiance]

Perhaps putting coffee between your legs is stupid, but if a corporation enforcing a policy of giving customers a "beverage" that causes third degree burns on contact isn't negligent, then there's simply no such thing.

[defiance]

As for the starbucks one, the case has merit as a class action.  No one plaintiff deserves more than the cost of a cup of coffee a day for a month (which, at starbucks, is actually a chunk o' money!! ), but Starbucks' marketing department screwed up COMPLETELY - but it got internal approval, so they should be held to their promise.

[Blown70]

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ponch ®]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

[Vainglory, Esq.]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

Hey now!  This is the third week...

[dodge freak]

Good luck to you, the world needs another Johnny Cochran.

[Troy]

They are still making tons of money. That lady was not stupid she was old. Hopefully we all be old one day. Old people hands shake, and yes eatting and driving slows traffic down and causes accidents but not one fast food place has been sue because of their drive though lanes. If McDonald's doesn't agree with the laws here in the USA they can close up shop. Don't worry there always be a place you can drive up to a window and get a cup of coffee. And McDonald's isn't closing up either they are making lots of money here in the USA.

She was holding a cup of coffee between her knees while trying to take the lid off... 

Orange Crush's post above points out that she was found 20% at fault due to her own actions (did you read it?). I'd say they were being generous with that estimate. It also helps to make my other point about the total monetary award. You see, she finally ended up with $640,000 ($160,000 compensatory + $480,000 punitive) but then settled out of court for an amount that isn't listed. The lawyers would have gotten 30-50% of that amount and there may have been expenses on top of that. After her medical expenses she probably made enough to get another coffee.

As for Starbucks lawsuit I think its a joke. Nobody got hurt and does anybody think a company would just give you a free anything. If they do great but if not so what. How did that hurt anybody.

That's where I disagree - they did promise a product for free. It's about integrity and business ethics and all that. Technically, nobody got hurt but a customer should expect a company to hold up their end of the deal. The amount asked for is a joke considering a decent Starbucks manager would have just comp'd the woman a free drink if she complained.

Troy

[Ponch ®]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

Hey now!  This is the third week...

my bad, Chief Justice Marshall.

[bull]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

The words "great" and "Johnny Cochran" should not go in the same sentence unless the word "loser" or something similar is between them.

[Ponch ®]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

The words "great" and "Johnny Cochran" should not go in the same sentence unless the word "loser" or something similar is between them.

you can question Johnny Cochran's character all you want, but any lawyer that could get a blatantly guilty OJ Simpson off is great in my book.

[hemigeno]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

The words "great" and "Johnny Cochran" should not go in the same sentence unless the word "loser" or something similar is between them.

you can question Johnny Cochran's character all you want, but any lawyer that could get a blatantly guilty OJ Simpson off is great in my book.