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 the 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 Stella's for the past year:


7 TH 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.

6 TH 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.

Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.


5 TH PLACE :

Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, 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 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...

4 TH 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.

Grrrrr ... Scratch, scratch.

3RD PLACE:

Third place goes to 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. What ever happened to people
being responsible for their own actions?

Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stella's to go...

2ND 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.


1ST PLACE : (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos please)

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs.. Merv
Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased a new 32-foot
Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home from an OU football game,
having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and
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.


Are we, as a society, getting more stupid...? :rolleyes:

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.

Uhhh, animal abusers! Hate hate hate anyone who could harm any animal! Lucky I wasn't in charge... I would have given the little sh*t the chair never mind $14,500. :mad: :mad: :mad:


Are we, as a society, getting more stupid...?

Ohh no society passed 'stupid' years and years ago. :crazy:

In regards to Stelle Liebeck, I want to post this lengthy, yet informative and factual statement of her case. It has always been assumed this woman was driving and she spilled the coffee and wasn't at fault. Not true at all. I find it appalling that the facts of this old woman's case and her injuries have been mocked at after all these years:

Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's injuries–which included 3rd degree burns across her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks–were no laughing matter.

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.

That's right, Irene. I've been saying that four years. I can't believe a scam lawwsuit award was created in her name.


Post# 5, almost four years ago.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck)


Recently.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=207041&page=2&highlight=stella+liebeck (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=207041&page=2&highlight=stella+liebeck)

(http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck)

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

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.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.


Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

That's right, Irene. I've been saying that four years. I can't believe a scam lawwsuit award was created in her name.


Post# 5, almost four years ago.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck)


Recently.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=207041&page=2&highlight=stella+liebeck (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=207041&page=2&highlight=stella+liebeck)

(http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=96718&highlight=stella+liebeck)
I should thank you Janice for posting that originally. It was your post that came to my mind as I read this thread. I used the same article you posted. So let me say THANK YOU JANICE for posting it originally and let's hope people become informed rather than MISINFORMED regarding this lady. Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, that judge and his missing pants come to mind. Surely a lady who was found to be 20% at fault for this whole scalding coffee lawsuit can someday have her named removed from these awards.

In regards to Stelle Liebeck, I want to post this lengthy, yet informative and factual statement of her case. It has always been assumed this woman was driving and she spilled the coffee and wasn't at fault. Not true at all. I find it appalling that the facts of this old woman's case and her injuries have been mocked at after all these years:

Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's injuries–which included 3rd degree burns across her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks–were no laughing matter.

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.

Thanks for these facts about the McDonald's coffee suit.

I'd like to take Miss 7th and 3rd Place and beat them senseless. What worthless pieces of ****.


And Miss 1st Place....how is it that you are able to breathe and stand upright with NO BRAIN? Go live in Siberia.

Crazy. Those people need a reality check.

In the immortal words of Napoleon Dynamite - "IDIOTS!!" :rolleyes:

Oh...and to hubcap guy...too bad the car didn't run over all of you.

Surely a lady who was found to be 20% at fault for this whole scalding coffee lawsuit can someday have her named removed from these awards.
It's too bad. She's probably passed on by now, or is almost 100 years old. What an unjust legacy. If that was my mother, I'd be filing lawsuits for defamation or whatever. I'd probably end up as a recipient of a Stella award, lol.

Don't these people also fall under the requirements for a Darwin Award?

I'd probably end up as a recipient of a Stella award, lol.
:brent STEEELLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!:lol:

Don't these people also fall under the requirements for a Darwin Award?
:rofl: I say they do!!

These people are obviously idiots who only want the money but IMHO the people who are ALSO idiots are the jury/judges who actual LET these morons WIN the case! Now that's ridiculous.

These people are obviously idiots who only want the money but IMHO the people who are ALSO idiots are the jury/judges who actual LET these morons WIN the case! Now that's ridiculous.
Amen to that...
You know what though?? Number one is definitely the stupidest of all, but I don't think her case is as bad as some of the others who are being just plain malicious. I would have put number one at number 7 on this list but number one on a most stupid list. :lol:
I think the guy getting bit by the dog he was shooting with the pellet gun or the woman tripping over her own kid then suing the store ought to be lower on the list...and maybe number one goes to all the juries who awarded these people their claims?

**unless, of course, once again, we don't have all the facts. I would hope that we don't if all these juries awarded these people their claims.

That last one baffles me. How could anyone actually do something that dumb? I would probably be afraid of just DRIVING one of those huge things on the freeway, much less willing to actually attempt to go get a SANDWICH. :lol: