The phrase that was burned (sorry) into my mind when reading about the case was “seared her vagina shut.”
Anyone who thinks that woman didn’t deserve a truck load of money has no idea what the case actually entailed.
Did she specify precognition as one of those powers?
So, “truth in advertising” shouldn’t be applicable at all when it comes to movie trailers?
Upvote
The full facts of the case have always been controversial, and frequently cited as an example of abuse of litigation. So it randomly came to mind for that reason. Perhaps it wasn’t the best example of frivolous litigation. If so, sue me! 
But there are certainly many other examples …
Yeah, that’s the sort of thing that happens when one side in a civil dispute has its own marketing division. The trial outcome becomes “controversial.”
No perhaps about it.
Well, we’re off on a tangent now, I see. My older brother, when he was young, once had boiling water accidentally spilled on him – not “hot”, but literally boiling. He didn’t sue anyone, not for the $20K that Liebeck initially sought, nor for the $2.9 million she was eventually awarded.
Here is a fact of life: coffee is supposed to be hot. Was that particular McDonald’s coffee hotter than normal? I have no idea. There is certainly no economic advantage to McD’s to keep their coffee hotter than normal. I drink hot coffee all the time, without any top on the cup at all, and I’ve never had the need to sue anyone.
I’m done arguing on this Christmas Eve. Merry Christmas, everyone!
The worst ever case of frivolous legislation was when a bunch of teens at a water park all conspired to jump into a single person slide at the same time against the operators orders, the number of teens who jumped in grossly overloaded the weight limit for the slide causing it to collapse and a couple of teens died iirc, and their families sued and won despite the fact they literally and deliberately created a dangerous condition against the parks orders.
Yes, it McDonald’s had determined that consumers drank their coffee when they got to work, rather than right away. As a result, they served it 20 degrees hotter than normal. You never felt the need to sue anybody presumably because you never had third degree burns on your thighs and genitals, resulting in the need for skin grafts.
We’ll, I don’t expect that they’ll win. But less misleading advertisements for movies could be viewed as a good thing.
When I worked at a high school that was right next to a McD’s, I used to buy coffee there (and a newspaper from a machine out front). I always asked them to toss in a couple of ice cubes, which they never minded doing. Apparently I wasn’t the only person who asked.
If you’d like to have one, here’s some facts about the case:
Plus, she at first was asking for her expenses, about $20,000. The franchisee counter offered to settle for $800. That’s when the lawyer was hired.
I’m not sure of the details, but the jury decided to award, not a dollar amount, but something like “all the money McDonald’s made from coffee in a single day,” without realizing what a huge sum that would be-- they thought it would be less that a millon dollars, but it was actually several hundred millions. A judge reduced it on appeal, but still awarded several million, which was pocket change to McDonald’s.
The jury would have had to award a dollar amount. What you describe might be how they arrived at the figure (for punitive damages) but they would have to award a specific number.
I am not a lawyer (albeit, I count several among my first cousins). I am just remembering something I read in an article many moons ago, so yes, maybe that is how that reached the number, and some jurors expressed shock to the press afterwards.
Even that case is described incorrectly - the litigant had an allergic reaction to the iodine injected prior to a CAT scan - as a result she never hadcthr scan, but reported hsving recurrinh headaches that kept her from doing her job (her job being “giving psychic readings”). Now it might be no bad thing that she’s not able to trick people any more, but getting a settlement for debilitating headaches isn’t inherently ridiculous.
Hey-- read a summary in Skeptic magazine-- they usually check stuff out pretty well.
Here’s her legal brief from the case
Plaintiff Judith Richardson Haimes and her husband, Allen N. Haimes, brought this medical-malpractice action to recover damages suffered by Mrs. Haimes as a result of undergoing a computerized axiotomography (CT scan), a type of diagnostic x-ray. The principal items of damages sought by plaintiff related to chronic and disabling headaches which, according to plaintiff, prevented her from practicing her occupation as a psychic.