It’s been fifteen years, and I’m still miffed.

It’s not the distortion of the case that dominated the news media that bothers me so much.  It’s not even the highly paid insurance lobbyists who worked so hard to paint that inaccurate picture.

It’s that they got away with it.

Every once in a while, I’m reminded of that, and it comes as a surprise every time.  This week, I was reminded when a colleague mentioned the McDonald’s coffee case in conjunction with the recent case of the man who filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit because the cleaners lost his pants.  Others joined in.  Others joined in.  Here’s what I discovered they DIDN’T KNOW about the McDonald’s coffee case:

• The plaintiff ultimately received $640,000, not millions.  Yes, the jury originally awarded her millions of dollars–and did so intentionally, because the damages were punitive and they knew that McDonald’s, which raked in about $1.3 million a DAY in coffee sales alone, wouldn’t be fazed by anything less.  From that perspective, the initial award hardly seems excessive, but if you think it was excessive, guess what?  The SYSTEM WORKED and the verdict was reduced!
• The plaintiff sustained third degree burns over 16% of her body, including her genital area.  What exactly IS the appropriate compensation for undergoing skin grafts on your privates? 
• The plaintiff originally offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000–a number barely in excess of her original medical bills.  Had McDonald’s opted to simply pay the woman’s medical bills, no jury would ever have had the opportunity to award her millions of dollars.
• McDonald’s coffee was customarily served about 40 degrees hotter than coffee at other restaurants.  While most restaurants served coffee at between 135 and 140 degree Fahrenheit, McDonald’s served coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees–and admitted at trial that the company knew that a burn hazard existed for any food served at above 140 degrees and that coffee could not be consumed at that temperature.
• During the previous ten years, McDonald’s had received at least 700 other complaints about customers being burned by coffee.  These complaints included other cases in which customers had sustained third degree burns.
• The plaintiff was NOT driving.  While news reports at the time frequently asserted a sort of "it’s your own dumb fault" argument based on the idea that the plaintiff had been driving at the time of the spill, the evidence at trial established that she was a passenger in the vehicle AND that the vehicle was not moving at the time of the spill.

This list could go on, but the case is readily available for review for anyone who wants to understand the full details.  Sadly, that seems to be a very small pool of people, given that 15 years have passed and the momentary spin created by a very well-compensated team of public relations professionals and lobbyists working on behalf of the insurance industry still stands as "common knowledge".