Some people say lawyers are greedy; some people say insurance companies are greedy. Guess which one has higher margin of profit?

Hello! Attorney Bill Gammon:

You know so many details about that McDonalds?’ Coffee Case. That poor old, little lady finally got a judgment of $800,000. Could you let all of us know how much she had actually received? Could you also let us know how much the lawyer had profited from his hard and compassionate work?

Correction

Lisa

I'll have to check with the attorney who represented the Plaintiff to find out what, if anything, he got for his work, but considering what the award was, it could not have been much. Please forgive the typo in my earlier post the actual award was $480,000 not $800,000. Here are some more facts about the suit:

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit


According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Stop rewarding the ridiculous!

After the Judge decreased the amount to 480,000, they settled on an amount and it was not supposed to be disclosed per the settlement agreement.

Here's America's latest fast-food riddle: Q: When does a pickle equal $125,000? A: When it's the basis of a high-priced lawsuit. A husband and wife sued a fast food place after a hot pickle fell out of her hamburger and landed on her chin. The woman sued for 110,000 and her husband sued for an additional 15,000 because he was denied services and consortium by his injured wife.

In a class action lawsuit against Cheerios over a food additive, $2 million was paid in lawyers' fees, yet consumers in the lawsuit only received coupons for free Cheerios;

and,

In a suit against computer monitor manufacturers resulted in a settlement that paid lawyers $6 million while each consumer received a $13 rebate on new merchandise.

Former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern has said that a quarter of all civil lawsuits filed in the United States are either frivolous or fraudulent.

Faced with a frivolous lawsuit, most defendants will settle for nuisance value or fight to have the case dismissed rather than continue to plow money into legal fees with the scant hope of ever recovering a dime. Even some prominent plaintiffs' lawyers agree that we need stronger medicine to fight junk lawsuits.

It's time for meaningful reform. We may not be able to legislate common sense, but we can certainly stop rewarding the ridiculous.