Podcast appearances and mentions of stella liebeck

It all started with the McDonald's hot coffee case in 1994, and it still happens today. Customers who have sued and won over injuries resulting from spilled food and drink from restaurants at drive-thru windows. The latest, a $50 million jury award to a plaintiff who sued Starbucks over spilled hot tea, reminds Michael of an interview he conducted with Judy Allen, the daughter of the original McDonald's lawsuit plaintiff, Stella Liebeck. Hear that archive audio here as part of a conversation with NBC News / MSNBC Legal Analyst Danny Cevallos, examining several of these cases. Original air date 17 March 2025.

Happy 2024! We open the year talking about Yahtzee, which Alex calls dice poker, a Jimmy Hoffa update, and Bagheera very much makes his presence known. We also debate the definition of a den. Clara tries to bring Justice to Stella Liebeck. Alex tells us about 5 lawsuits she has feelings about. Turns out only 4 because #5 was Stella. Sorrz about the static, and Alex's mic just refusing to work. We'll never leave Clara's house again.

The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back.At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are.  We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions.But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time.  She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains.Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case.As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions.  He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to.Sit back and enjoy.

La storia di Stella Liebeck è ormai leggenda, anzi, un meme: una donna sbadata si rovescia il caffè addosso, fa causa a McDonald's e diventa milionaria. Ma... È andata proprio così? ------------ Novità in arrivo per il format Brutte Storie... Attiva la campanella per non perderti nulla! Per supportare il progetto "Brutte Storie": https://ko-fi.com/claracampi Seguimi su tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@claracampicomedy E su Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/claracampicomedy/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Folge 38 geht es um skurille Gerichtsurteile, allen voran der Prozess von Stella Liebeck gegen McDonald´s die sich mit heißem Kaffee verbrüht und anschließend geklagt hatte. Aber es gibt noch viele Prozesse mehr, von denen Olli berichten kann. Auf Instagram seht ihr immer Begleitmaterial zu den Folgen: http://instagram.com/higolipodcast Alle Links zu uns findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/hintergoogle

Summary In this episode, Tyson Mutrix discusses the famous McDonald's hot coffee case, which sparked widespread outrage and became a catalyst for debates on tort reform. He addresses the misconceptions and half-truths surrounding the case and presents the actual facts. The incident involved Stella Liebeck, who suffered third-degree burns from the excessively hot coffee. McDonald's was aware of the risk but maintained the high temperature due to customer preference. The jury initially awarded Liebeck $2.86 million, which was later reduced to $640,000 by the judge. This case highlights the complexities of personal injury lawsuits and the importance of scrutinizing sensational headlines. Takeaways The McDonald's hot coffee case sparked debates on tort reform and raised awareness about personal injury lawsuits. Misconceptions and half-truths surrounded the case, leading to a distorted public perception. Stella Liebeck suffered severe burns from the excessively hot coffee, requiring extensive medical treatment. McDonald's was aware of the coffee's high temperature but maintained it due to customer preference. Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Background 01:10 Misconceptions and Media Coverage 03:11 The Lawsuit and McDonald's Response 05:03 McDonald's Offer and Lawsuit Filing 05:54 McDonald's Knowledge of Coffee Hazards 07:13 Jury Award and Judge's Reduction 07:47 Complexities of Personal Injury Lawsuits 08:17 Recommendation: Hot Coffee Documentary 08:33 Conclusion and Contact Information --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mutrux-firm-injury/message

Em 1993, um copo de café foi o que levou uma mulher de 80 anos a um tribunal civil contra uma das maiores empresas no ramo de fastfood. Um caso fará ferver o sangue até daqueles que preferem o café gelado.  Produção: Crimes e Mistérios Brasil Narração: Tatiana Daignault Edição: Tatiana Daignault Pesquisa e Roteiro: Tatiana Daignault  Fotos e fontes sobre o caso você encontra no nosso site O Café Crime e Chocolate é um podcast brasileiro que conta casos de crimes reais acontecidos no mundo inteiro com pesquisas detalhadas, narrado com respeito e foco nas vítimas. Não esqueça de se inscrever no podcast pela sua plataforma preferida, assim você não perde nenhum episódio.  Siga-nos também em nossas redes sociais: Instagram Facebook X

In this eye-opening episode of the Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers Podcast, we pour over the infamous McDonald's hot coffee case that scalded public opinion and brewed a storm of controversy in the world of personal injury law. Join us as we unravel the misconceptions and reveal the startling facts behind Stella Liebeck's lawsuit against the fast-food giant. Our journey begins in the passenger seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, where Stella Liebeck experienced a life-changing accident with a cup of coffee that was served far hotter than any beverage ought to be. We'll explore the agonizing consequences of the spill, including third-degree burns and extensive medical treatments that followed this seemingly mundane incident. Dive deep with us into the heart of the lawsuit, where Liebeck's initial plea for her medical expenses to be covered was met with a cold shoulder from McDonald's, leading to a landmark trial that highlighted not just one woman's suffering but a corporate policy that put millions at risk. Hear from legal experts and insiders who shed light on the 700 prior complaints against McDonald's for similar injuries, the trial's outcome, and the aftermath of the case that continues to influence personal injury law and corporate accountability. This episode isn't just a recount of events; it's a call to action and awareness. Whether you're a legal professional, a consumer rights advocate, or simply someone interested in the truth behind the headlines, this episode promises to change the way you think about the legal battles that shape our society. Don't miss this steaming hot episode of the Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers Podcast. Tune in to learn, reflect, and engage with the scalding truth about the McDonald's hot coffee case. If you've been affected by similar negligence or are navigating the complexities of a personal injury case, reach out to Mutrux Firm Injury Lawyers at 888.550.4026. Our team is dedicated to fighting for justice and ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first step towards your legal resolution. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mutrux-firm-injury/message

EP 44 EXPOSED! The Warnings Doctor | Failure to Warn: McDonald's Found Liable Again for Failing to Warn Customers About Risk of Hot Products  - with Dr. Gerry Goldhaber Has McDonald's learned their lesson regarding principled disclosure of hidden hazards in hot food and beverage?  Did McDonald's know that their hot products posed a safety hazard to their customers?  McDonald's was caught serving its food and beverages at temperatures significantly higher than the rest of the industry, resulting in serious burns.  Florida jurors recently found a McDonald's franchise holder liable for negligence and failure to warn customers about the risk of hot food, and McDonald's USA liable for failing to provide instructions for safe handling of the food.  This latest litigation was reminiscent of the 1994 case, Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's, known as the "hot coffee case."  Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald's coffee on her legs and faced third-degree burns due to the high temperature of the liquid.  In this episode of EXPOSED, go behind-the-scenes of the Liebeck litigation and hear why these hot product lawsuits are anything but frivolous.  I have testified and consulted on hundreds of cases involving the failure to warn customers about the risk of hot food and beverage.  Goldhaber Research Associates play a key role in supporting these types of claims, educating the judge or jury, and conveying expert opinions through detailed and cogent reports as well as during deposition or courtroom testimony.  For further insights, please visit murderincbook.com and goldhaber.com.  And remember, the more informed you are, the safer you'll be!   For information about Goldhaber Research Associates, please visit ⁠⁠⁠https://www.goldhaber.com/clients⁠⁠⁠.  You can also go to ⁠⁠⁠https://www.murderincbook.com/⁠⁠⁠ to get your copy of my bestselling book, MURDER, INC. And remember, the more informed you are, the safer you'll be! Produced by David Alan Kogut - www.starequitygroup.com | www.yourbizinabox.com

Want to jump right into the episode? The doc starts at 02:19. This week we cover the HBO documentary Hot Coffee which dissects four different cases misrepresented by the media. The most famous of these is that of Stella Liebeck, who successfully sued Mcdonalds after spilling hot coffee on herself. We learn the truth about these cases, and also get into the judicial system and tort reform. As always, we digress. Social media: tiktok.com/2girls1docpodcast instagram.com/2girls1doc twitter.com/2girls1doc facebook.com/2girls1doc 2girls1doc@gmail.com

Attorney & content creator Reb Masel is here to talk everything from misconceptions about the woman who sued McDonalds over her coffee to the OJ Simpson trial and why the unfortunate legacy of Nicole Brown Simpson changed the legal system forever. On the lighter side, her and Emily also get into the most unexpected part of being a lawyer - having to review d*ck pics from hell.  Patreon This week: A Closer Look at Jameela Jamil out Wednesday, September 14th 10% of monthly proceeds go to non-profit Homeboy Industries   Follow Reb Masel: @Rebmasel on TikTok Resources: 1. More information on Stella Liebeck and Liebeck v. McDonald's: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts    2. The Nicole-Brown Simpson Hearsay Exception, passed by the CA Legislature on April 18, 1996: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2068_cfa_960419_162523_asm_floor.html   3. If you or someone you know is a victim of domestic and/or intimate partner violence:  US: https://ncadv.org/resources Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/stop-family-violence/services.html     Follow Emily Rose: @itsbecomeawholething on Instagram @itsbecomeawholething on Tiktok   Book Astrology Readings: 30 Minute Astrology Reading 60 Minute Astrology Reading    

Stella Liebeck fór í lúguna á McDonalds, keypti sér saklausan kaffibolla í morgunmat og lagði bílnum. Þegar hún var búin að setja sykurinn og rjómann í bollann þá hellti hún kaffibollanum yfir sig. 88 gráðu heita kaffið bræddi buxurnar sem límdust við húðina hennar og gera þurfti stórar aðgerðir til að laga brunasárið og koma henni úr lífshættu. Kristjana sötrar skítvolgt decaf sull á meðan hún rennir yfir staðreyndir málsins. 

On a chilly February morning in 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of hot coffee from a McDonald's drive-through. When she opened the top to add cream and sugar, the flimsy cup spilled 190-degree coffee into her lap, resulting in excruciatingly painful 3rd degree burns. Mrs. Liebeck sued for gross negligence, asking McDonald's to improve their cups, lower the temperature of their dangerously hot coffee, and pay her $20,000 worth of medical bills; McDonald's countered with...$800. After a week-long trial, the jury found McDonald's responsible and awarded Mrs. Liebeck two days' worth of the fast-food giant's coffee sales, a sum of $2.7 million. No, the Golden Arches never paid her the full sum, and the press had a field day with "Woman Spills Hot Coffee, Wins Millions" stories. On this highly caffeinated episode, we're looking into coffee safety, burn lawsuits, tort reform, and how hot you should really be drinking your morning beverage. Sources for this episode: The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case from Consumer Attorneys of California McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction Liebeck v. McDonald's: The Hot Coffee Case by Allison Torres Burtka The Truth Behind the Infamous McDonald's Hot Coffee Case by A.J. Serafini And Now, The Rest of the Story by Kevin G. Cain Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants by Elizabeth Gam

This week on Hashtag History, we are discussing Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants, more commonly known as the McDonald's Hot Coffee Case. In 1992, a seventy-nine-year old woman named Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While in her car, she spilled the coffee in her lap and suffered severe burns. She took this matter to court and would be awarded close to $3 million dollars. When the story first came out, the general public was told the Liebeck was lawsuit-happy; if someone can get nearly $3 million dollars for spilling coffee on themselves - coffee that she had to have known was hot - while she was driving and not paying attention, that just goes to show that now anyone can sue anyone for anything! In fact, we nowadays give away a Stella Awards (named after Stella Liebeck) for each year's most frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits. Over the course of this episode though, we will learn that nearly every single one of those - quote unquote - “facts” of the case were, in fact, false. Nearly every detail you think you know about this case is about to get debunked. Follow Hashtag History on Instagram @hashtaghistory_podcast for all of the pictures mentioned in this episode. Citations for all sources can be located on our website at www.HashtagHistory-Pod.com. You can also check out our website for super cute merch! You can now sponsor a cocktail and get a shout-out on air! Just head to www.buymeacoffee.com/hashtaghistory or head to the Support tab on our website! Finally, you can locate us on www.Patreon.com/hashtaghistory where you can donate $1 a month to our Books and Booze Supply. All of your support goes a long ways and we are endlessly grateful! To show our gratitude, all Patreon Supporters receive an automatic 15% OFF all merchandise in our merchandise store, bonus Hashtag Hangouts episodes, a shoutout on social media, and stickers! THANKS FOR LISTENING! - Rachel and Leah

In 1992, 79 year old Stella Liebeck accidentally spilled hot coffee from McDonald's on herself.  The resulting injuries, extensive medical and rehabilitation bills and the corporate indifference of the fast food giant are the lead story in this documentary, but not the only one.  Beside providing background to the "tort reform movement" of the early 2000s, there is also the case of Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton (2005) where an employee unknowingly signed a Dispute Resolution Program agreementMandatory Arbitration Settlement.

Recently, a woman from Illinois sued Kellogg's $5 million because the so-called "strawberry-flavored" Pop-Tarts were actually made with apples, pears, and color additives. When I heard about this, I was a bit speechless at the fact that this is the case. The same thing happened with Starbucks when they got complaints that their pumpkin spice lattes didn't have actual pumpkin flavor, so in 2015, Starbucks went to using the original pumpkin recipe, after being complained to since 2003. Or that famous Mcdonald's coffee lawsuit where Stella Liebeck sued them for burning her body over overheated coffee back in 1992. Thanks, Adam Ruins Everything! Anyways, Kellogg's getting sued is probably a big deal for them now, so they have to go to court. In fact, Jerry Seinfeld actually made a joke about Pop-Tarts while live on Letterman. We have that clip. Credits go to NBC and David Letterman for the original deal. And I guess, Seinfeld himself for saying those words. Oh I dunno. GUESS WHAT? SEINFELD IS MAKING A MOVIE ON NETFLIX BASED ON THAT JOKE!!! I'm not kidding, this is real. KELLOGG'S! SHAME ON YOU! YOU DIDN'T USE REAL STRAWBERRIES AND WENT TO USING APPLES AND PEARS? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PEOPLE GOT AWAY WITH THIS FOR MANY YEARS. So the next time you have a Pop-Tart, remember that it isn't strawberry-flavored at all. Seems like it's too good to be true. FOLLOW MY PODCAST FOR MORE UPDATES! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/acnyc/message

TechSpective Podcast Episode 078 Wi-Fi security is plagued by some incorrect or outdated myths and misperceptions. Some stories refuse to die no matter how much time goes on or how verifiably false they are. For example, a significant percentage of people are positive that Stella Liebeck was just clumsy and trying to cash in–and that [...] The post Kevin Robinson Chats about Wi-Fi Security appeared first on TechSpective.

I dagens avsnitt av Nära Ögat - en true crime podd för mesar: Vi har alla hört galna historier om hur lätt det är att stämma företag i USA för minsta lilla besvär, men vad är egentligen sanningen bakom en av de mest välkända stämningarna? Vad hände kvinnan som stämde McDonalds för att serverat för varmt kaffe? Elizabeth Holmes är en ung kvinnlig entreprenör som tar hela Tech-världen med storm när hon lanserade sin banbrytande uppfinning som ska komma att revolutionera modern medicin. Nära Ögat Podd Instagram Nära Ögat Podd FacebookDu hittar Nära Ögat - en true crime podd för mesar på de vanligaste plattormarna för poddar ex Acast, Spotify, Apple Podcaster etc.Support till showen http://supporter.acast.com/nara-ogat. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This episode brought to you by Angela Lansbury.Lisa details the life of Christine Keeler and the Profumo Affair.Hayly spills the beans on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Case and scorched grandma, Stella Lieback.Whitney recounts the near-execution experience of Siti Aisyah, the oblivious assassin. 

This week Nathalie kicks off our theme of cheaters! In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself at a McDonald's drive thru in Albuquerque. Stella then sued McDonald's and was awarded $3 million in punitive damages. Although it wasn't breaking the law, in court of public opinion many have deemed Stella to be a cheater of the system. However, this story isn't quite as it appears. Nathalie takes us through what actually happened the day of the incident. Many believed Stella was irresponsible, that she was driving while drinking coffee and she spilled it on herself. This was not true, Stella was the passenger in a car that wasn't moving at the time of the spill. The coffee was served at a temperature that could cause severe burns in a matter of seconds. Stella didn't even want to take the case to trial, all she wanted was to settle for the cost of her injuries and for lost income. Listen now to hear more about Stella's story! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

This week, Jamie's sharing two shorter cases that are both from Cornwall: Owlman and the Hairy Hands of Dartmoor. Sarah talks about Stella Liebeck, who sued McDonald's for hot coffee that burnt parts of her body. As always, thank you for listening! Please don't forget to share, rate, and subscribe! Music Credit: Darkest Child var A Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Warum mag Sven keinen Koriander und wie Josh die Klimakrise vorantreibt... nur heute bei Real - Besorg's dir doch einfach!

In 1992, Stella Liebeck got third-degree burns after spilling a hot McDonalds coffee on her lap. Was she responsible for her injuries or was McDonalds? We argue the case with Barb Weigel. Follow @TryTrialAgain on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for episode pictures and more!

The Mc Donald's Hot Coffee Case ‘Asking for an extra hot Mc Donald's coffee is practically self-harm.' It's a case most of us around in the 90s are familiar with: A woman, driving in her car while holding McDonald's coffee between her legs, spills some of the coffee on herself, resulting in minor burns. She subsequently sues McDonald's and earns millions in the process. The actual narrative, however, would reveal the shocking injuries suffered by the victim, Stella Liebeck, and her family's quest to clear her name. @juliejaycomedy talks to comedian Ronan Grace. If you have enjoyed this episode please subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts and/or tell a friend! Thank you so much for listening! Mind yourselves, J xx

Caution! Contents of this episode are HOT.Sarah starts off with some McDonald's fast-food history, including how they integrated Ford's Model-T assembly line to create their quick service and drive-thru, and the key role milkshakes played in their success. She then highlights some international menu items that have been tailored to satisfy consumer preferences around the world.Becca covers an instance of tort law that had Ronald Reagan in a tizzy: the case of Charles Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. She then discusses how this case relates to the most infamous personal injury lawsuit: the McDonald's Hot Coffee Case. She breaks down the details of the case, including testimony, media coverage, and what actually happened to the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (did she really make 3 million dollars?). Becca then spills the tea on an investigation she conducted and the optimal drinking temperature of your latte.Becca & Sarah close the episode by discussing the importance of remaining unbiased and in sticking together when it comes to consumer safety. Sarah leaves us with a teaser about avocados.For all links and references visit our website.This is an independently produced podcast and your support means a lot to us. Please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen!Follow on Instagram and Twitter @unsavorypodcast to stay in the loop on all things podcast-related.Follow Sarah & Becca on Instagram @sarahdoesnutrition and @thenutritionjunky for recipes and all things dietetics. This podcast was produced by Geoff Devine at Earworm Radio.Follow Geoff @ewradio on Instagram or visit earwormradio.com. Get bonus content on Patreon See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We've all heard the story of a woman who spills her cup of coffee driving away from McDonald's and sues them for a million dollars. But is that the full story? Jaclyn and Courtney will dive into the real story about what happened to Stella Liebeck and the surprising details of this case that quickly made national news and even into a country music song. email: caffeinatedcrimespod@gmail.comInstagram: @caffeinatedcrimespodSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/caffeinatedcrimes)

Episode 15 - We get into McDonald's again and the infamous hot coffee lawsuit that was filed against them. This case made such headlines that a documentary was made about it, with corporations often using it as an example of a “frivolous” lawsuit. In this episode, your hosts Becky, Kate, and Karen dive into the dangers of the media and public opinion, reminding listeners that things are not always as they seem. Just because there is a popular opinion about something does not mean that it is true – particularly in light of the serious injuries sustained by the then 79-year-old Stella Liebeck following the hot coffee incident. We also talk about our irrational fears and anxieties about space, our experiences with spacey movies, and why we totally get that some people need professional help to deal with their astrophobia. Joining in on our conversation, you will also hear about Kate’s canvassing journey and how it has become a means of expressing and acting on her political values. https://link.chtbl.com/NoOneToldUs

What exactly are punitive damages? We’ve all heard of them before, but what exactly are “punitive damages”? According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, punitive damages are “awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances.” As the name suggests, punitive damages are considered a punishment on top of actual (“provable”) damages. Punitive damages are typically awarded when a defendant’s conduct is found to be particularly harmful. Punitive damages serve to punish defendants for inflicting harms that cannot be easily quantified – harms caused by outrageous, willful, or wanton conduct on the part of a defendant. A judge or a jury typically will determine the need for and amount of punitive damages in a given case. In addition to punishing a defendant, punitive damages are intended to serve a cautionary purpose in society. They send a message about the kinds of conduct that will not be tolerated by society, as expressed by a court of law or by a finder of fact. In this sense, an award of punitive damages is grounded in the theory that the interests of society and the interests of a harmed individual can both be satisfied by requiring a defendant to provide restitution. The McDonald’s Case But punitive damages can be controversial. Faced with the requirement to pay punitive damages, defendants often claim that the damages are excessive, unfair, harmful to their business, or taxing on their insurance policies. Whenever punitive damages are discussed, the famous McDonalds hot coffee case is likely to be a feature of the discussion. In that case, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was burned by coffee served by McDonald’s at a temperature so hot that she suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body. Ms. Liebeck’s injuries were caused in three seconds. Most restaurant coffee is kept at 160 degrees. At this temperature, third-degree burns will be caused in 20 seconds, giving consumers time to react before a burn develops. McDonald’s coffee was kept at 190 degrees. Nor was Ms. Liebeck the first McDonalds consumer to be scalded by McDonald’s coffee. Approximately 700 other people were injured in similar incidents before Ms. Liebeck was burned. Ms. Liebeck made an offer to settle her claim for $20,000.00. McDonald’s gave her a counteroffer of a mere $800.00. The case proceeded to trial, and Ms. Liebeck was awarded $200,000.00 in actual damages for her pain, suffering, and medical expenses. That figure was reduced to $160,000.00, due to Ms. Liebeck’s slight liability in the coffee burn incident. Ms. Liebeck was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. This figure, too, was reduced – the judge in the case reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000.00. The McDonalds coffee case is a prime example of the controversy over punitive damages. Those who believe the punitive damages award was excessive paint McDonalds, rather than Ms. Liebeck, as the ultimate victim of the case. Whether or not this is accurate, the very notoriety of the case has imposed a check on the system of punitive damages generally. Following the firestorm over the punitive damages award in the McDonalds case, mindful jurors in other cases will likely think carefully about the impact of the figures they choose deciding to award punitive damages. Yet the McDonalds coffee case also serves to illustrate the importance of punitive damages. Ms. Liebeck’s injuries and her ensuing case were the manifestations of a problem that had long gone unaddressed – she was one of 700 burn victims; her cup of coffee was one of innumerable cups served by McDonald’s at a dangerous temperature. The award of punitive damages was perhaps intended to encourage quicker resolution of such issues in the future and deter restaurants from adopting harmful preparation practices. While such damages impose a cost, and while they are not always perfectly calibrated, they are intended to serve the population at large and help society address and navigate away from dangerous practices. https://www.dbllawyers.com/what-are-punitive-damages/

In August 1994, a jury awarded a 79-year-old woman more than $2 million for burn injuries she sustained from the dangerous temperatures of McDonald's coffee. Her case became the poster child of the widely touted corporate misnomer 'frivolous lawsuits' in America. In this special bonus episode, we have an exclusive interview with the attorney who represented the victim, Reed Morgan. Visit The Carlson Law Firm for more information Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.

Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald's coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America's legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort, and to what end. This week's palate cleanser: Doctor's Orders from the musical Catch Me if You Can.

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 86, originally published in April 2012. We all remember the famous McDonald's hot coffee case where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's after her scalding coffee spilled and burned her.  But do we know the actual facts?  Jason Hartman interviews Susan Saladoff, former attorney and producer of the documentary “Hot Coffee,” regarding the distorted facts surrounding the case and what is wrong with our court system today. Susan purports that our justice system has become partial to big business through public relations campaigns, and people believe that we have an out-of-control court system where anyone can sue for any frivolous reason, which has resulted in tort reforms – or tort “deforms” as Susan describes it. Susan says it is actually very difficult for a person with a non-meritorious case to win any money or even find a lawyer to defend them. She also says that people tend to think that many civil suits are ridiculous and are brought about by greedy people and businesses until it happens to them. Large corporate interests have this belief that if they can convince the public that the system is broken, that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, people will vote against their own best interests for tort reform. In doing so, we forfeit our Seventh Amendment right to access the court system. Jason and Susan discuss arbitration consequences, the corruption of the legal system, and what people can do to protect their rights. Susan Saladoff (Producer, Director) spent twenty-five years practicing law in the civil justice system, representing injured victims of individual and corporate negligence. She stopped practicing law in 2009 to make the documentary, HOT COFFEE, her first feature-length film. She began her career as a public interest lawyer with the law firm of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, now known as Public Justice, an organization that, for the last 25 years, has been at the forefront of keeping Americas courthouse doors open to all. Susan was recognized by her peers as an Oregon Super Lawyer for five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010. She is a graduate of Cornell University and George Washington University Law School, and has frequently lectured at the state and national levels on the importance of the civil justice system. Website: www.HotCoffeeTheMovie.com

McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit and Product Liability Laws - Episode 15  The show starts off by Matt spilling coffee on Tony. The guys then segway into the topic of Product Liability Lawsuits. They reference the infamous lawsuit against McDonalds where Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds for spilling a McDonalds coffee in her lap, which severely burned her. The media called it a frivolous lawsuit. The guys delve into the particulars of this lawsuit and breakdown how Product Liability Lawsuits work. Jokes are told and laughs are had as the guys bring up examples of some similar and hilarious lawsuits from throughout history.  Bullets:   Product Liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Responsibility for a product defect that causes injury lies with all sellers of the product who are in the distribution chain. Stella Liebeck had 3rd degree burns on 6% of her body from spilling the #mcdonalds coffee The coffee Stella was served was 180 degrees, which is ridiculously hot Stellas hospital bills were $10,000. She wrote a letter to McDonalds asking them to pay for her bills, the paid her $800. It was then that she sued. They ended up settling out of court and Stella was awarded $640,000. Punitive Damages – Damages exceeding simple compensation and awarded to punish the defendant MacPherson vs Buick Greeman vs Yuba The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act Do not put children in the washing machine Dominoes 30-minute delivery promise ended in 1989, because the drivers kept causing car accidents because they were speeding to get the pizza delivered on time.   Twitter: @legallyinsanepod @mattritter1 @toekneesam

Imagine spilling blazing hot coffee on yourself, getting such terrible third-degree burns the doctors think you'll die and then being called a money-grubbing dummy. That's what happened to Stella Liebeck. She became the villain and McDonald's the victim. Not cool...literally. Strange Country cohosts Beth and Kelly decide good must prevail against evil even if it requires a whole new category of damages called "penitive damages." Theme music: Resting Place by A Cast of Thousands Don't forget to give credit where credit is due: Drum, Kevin. “The Truth About Stella Liebeck.” Mother Jones, 25 June 2017, www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/truth-about-stella-liebeck/. “Liebeck v. McDonald's.” The American Museum of Tort Law, www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/. Saladoff, Susan, director. Hot Coffee. Amazon Video, www.amazon.com/Hot-Coffee-Susan-Saladoff/dp/B008HRPBRU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508845546&sr=8-1&keywords=hot coffee documentary. Silver-Greenberg, Jessica, and Robert Gebeloff. “Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice.” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0. Stout, Hillary. “Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore.” The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html. Sweet, Ken. “Big banks score win with scrapping of consumer class-Action lawsuit rule.” The Chicago Tribune, 26 Oct. 2017, www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-consumer-class-action-lawsuit-rule-20171025-story.html.

We all remember the famous McDonald’s hot coffee case where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after her scalding coffee spilled and burned her. But do we know the actual facts? Jason Hartman interviews Susan Saladoff, former attorney and producer of the documentary “Hot Coffee,” regarding the distorted facts surrounding the case and what is wrong with our court system today. Susan purports that our justice system has become partial to big business through public relations campaigns, and people believe that we have an out-of-control court system where anyone can sue for any frivolous reason, which has resulted in tort reforms – or tort “deforms” as Susan describes it. Susan says it is actually very difficult for a person with a non-meritorious case to win any money or even find a lawyer to defend them. She also says that people tend to think that many civil suits are ridiculous and are brought about by greedy people and businesses until it happens to them. Large corporate interests have this belief that if they can convince the public that the system is broken, that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, people will vote against their own best interests for tort reform. In doing so, we forfeit our Seventh Amendment right to access the court system. Jason and Susan discuss arbitration consequences, the corruption of the legal system, and what people can do to protect their rights. Susan Saladoff (Producer, Director) spent twenty-five years practicing law in the civil justice system, representing injured victims of individual and corporate negligence. She stopped practicing law in 2009 to make the documentary, HOT COFFEE, her first feature-length film. She began her career as a public interest lawyer with the law firm of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, now known as Public Justice, an organization that, for the last 25 years, has been at the forefront of keeping Americas courthouse doors open to all. Susan was recognized by her peers as an Oregon Super Lawyer for five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010. She is a graduate of Cornell University and George Washington University Law School, and has frequently lectured at the state and national levels on the importance of the civil justice system.

We’re tillbaka! Om terminsstarten som ju innebär upprop som ju innebär gynnande förvaltningsbeslut. Om domen från Turkiets författningsdomstol och vad som kanske står i den. Och! Lär er mer om kanske världens kändaste rättsfall: Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds. Ni vet det med det varma kaffet. Hur varmt var kaffet egentligen? Och hur gick det till slut i målet? Välkomna tillbaka! Och tack Lindahl, Familjens Jurist, G&D och Delphi!

This week, Liar City takes on a couple of legendary frivolous lawsuits -- Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's and David Geffen v. Neil Young.    Follow Liar City on Twitter.

In this episode of the REAL MOVIES PODCAST, we discuss the 2011 HBO Documentary HOT COFFEE. The film deals with the controversy surrounding so-called "frivolous lawsuits," specifically Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds, in which a woman famously spilled hot coffee on herself and won a large settlement from McDonalds.You can follow REAL MOVIES on Twitter: twitter.com/realmoviesYou can follow Jon at dontputmetosleep.blogspot.com and twitter.com/jonrhodesscholarYou can follow Rob at robcarmack.blogspot.com and twitter.com/robcarmackNext week's documentary: PEARL JAM TWENTY (2011)

An elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, buys coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru, spills it on her lap, sues and wins. This case caused quite the controversy, but also contributed to some dramatic changes in the law. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and co-host, Nolan Robinson, chat with Susan Saladoff, the producer and director of the documentary, Hot Coffee. Susan gives us the real story behind this notorious coffee case, talks tort reform, frivolous lawsuits and caps on damages and shares some other examples of how individuals are not getting a fair shake in this current civil justice system.

We all remember the famous McDonald's hot coffee case where Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's after her scalding coffee spilled and burned her.  But do we know the actual facts?  Jason Hartman interviews Susan Saladoff, former attorney and producer of the documentary “Hot Coffee,” regarding the distorted facts surrounding the case and what is wrong with [...]