Mike tells Sarah how a tragic story became a national punchline and a decades-long moral panic. Digressions include a sympathetic psychic, a paternalistic principal and a manure mishap. Mike appears to be unaware of the difference between a cousin and a nephew.
Support us:
Hear bonus episodes on Patreon
Donate on Paypal
Buy stickers, magnets, T-shirts and more
Where else to find us:
Sarah's other show, You Are Good
Mike's other show, Maintenance Phase
Links!
- Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis
- Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon
- Newsweek’s “Lawsuit Hell” story
- Retro Report’s “The Misunderstood McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit
- Adam Ruins Everything’s “The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit”
- Swindled’s “The Lawsuit”
- Susan Saladoff's "Hot Coffee" documentary
- McTorts: The Social and Legal Impact of McDonald's Role in Tort Suits
- Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway
- Revisiting The United States Application Of Punitive Damages: Separating Myth From Reality
- Six Myths of Capping Pain and Suffering Damages
- The Monster In The Television: The Media's Contribution To The Consumer Litigation Boogeyman
- The Beginning And The Possible End Of The Rise Of Modern American Tort Law
- Debunking Medical Malpractice Myths: Unraveling the False Premises Behind "Tort Reform"
- Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue
09/13/21 • 73 min
9 Listeners
You're Wrong About - The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case
Transcript Summary
In this episode titled "The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case," the hosts of the "You're Wrong About" podcast dive into the cultural narrative and media coverage surrounding this infamous lawsuit. They debunk misconceptions about the case, discuss the broader context of the tort revolution, and shed light on the changing attitudes towards corporate responsibility in America. The hosts explore the impact of distorted details and exaggerations in coverage, while highlighting the severe injuries Stella Liebeck suffered and her subsequent disability. They also critique the portrayal of frivolous lawsuits and the prioritization of corporations over citizen settlements. By examining the McDonald's hot coffee case, this episode challenges the prevailing notion of excessive litigation and urges listeners to question the motivations behind spreading these narratives. Ultimately, it presents a nuanced perspective on the true problems within the legal system and underscores the importance of victim compensation and corporate accountability.
Transcript
Sarah: By the way I have this idea for a companion show for Million Dollar Listing, it's for half a million dollar listings in cities like Seattle and Portland. And it's called, “For That?”
Welcome to You're Wrong About, the show where we always end up back at McDonald's. I feel like we’ve gone back to McDonald's a few times in this show.
Mike:
The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case Top Questions Answered
What are the facts of the McDonald's hot coffee case?
Stella Liebeck suffered severe burns from scalding hot coffee and initially received a large settlement that was later reduced on appeal. Her injuries required skin grafts, and she sought compensation for medical bills from McDonald's.
Was the McDonald's coffee served at an unusually high temperature?
Yes, McDonald's served their coffee at an extremely high temperature, potentially for profit reasons. This was a key aspect of the case.
How much money did Stella Liebeck initially request from McDonald's?
Stella Liebeck initially requested McDonald's to cover her medical bills and investigate the incident, but they offered her only $800.
Why did McDonald's refuse to settle the lawsuit?
McDonald's refused to settle the lawsuit filed by Stella Liebeck, leading to a trial. The trial focused on whether McDonald's was selling a defective and harmful product.
What was the jury's verdict in the McDonald's hot coffee case?
The jury awarded Stella Liebeck a $2.9 million settlement, but it was later reduced on appeal to $640,000.
How did media coverage portray the McDonald's hot coffee case?
Media coverage of the case primarily focused on the large settlement, rather than the details of the incident or the severity of Stella Liebeck's injuries.
Are lawsuits against corporations common in the United States?
Lawsuits against corporations are relatively more common in the United States compared to other developed countries.
What is the perception of lawsuits in American media?
American media tends to sensationalize and distort lawsuits, often focusing on financial aspects and perpetuating misconceptions.
Are most lawsuits frivolous?
Most lawsuits are not frivolous and serve as the only option for victims seeking compensation or corrective action.
Did the McDonald's hot coffee case lead to warning labels on hot beverages?
No, the common belief that the McDonald's hot coffee case led to warning labels on hot beverages is a myth.
Show more Questions
Show more Questions
Featured in these lists
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/youre-wrong-about-35290/the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case-16453961"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to the mcdonald's hot coffee case on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy