Scalding hot coffee first brought major headlines in 1992, when then 79-year-old Stella Liebeck won $2.7 million from McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns from a scorching hot beverage spilled in her lap. Arlington suffered second- and third-degree burns after the coffee spilled in his lap at the drive-thru. The pair are seeking unspecified damages. 25, 2021, according to an April 4 lawsuit they filed in Passaic County.Īrlington suffered second- and third-degree burns after the coffee spilled in his lap at the drive-thru, said the couple’s attorney, William Gold.Īrlington had medical bills, while Arlington-Macias, 37, suffered “a loss of her husband’s aid, comfort, conjugal fellowship and consortium,” they claim in the legal filing. Bloomberg via Getty Images Scalding hot coffee first brought major headlines in 1992, when then 79-year-old Stella Liebeck won 2.7 million from McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns. I went to Dunkin’ for grilled cheese - I got a paper sandwich insteadĪmerica might run on Dunkin’ but a New Jersey man and his wife are racing to court after he was allegedly burned by a hot cup of coffee from the java joint.Įvan Arlington and Stephanie Arlington-Macias bought two cups of coffee and an iced coffee from a Totowa Dunkin’ Donuts on Aug. Mom shot dead at Dunkin Donuts drive-thru in ‘targeted’ attack with son in backseat : reportĭunkin’ fans are steaming mad over ‘retired’ popular drink It should be available for streaming on Netflix.Grumpy Ben Affleck’s the most relatable person in Hollywood It's a 2011 documentary feature by Susan Saladoff that takes a more expansive look at Liebeck within the context of an ongoing corporate push for tort reform that marginalizes the legitimate complaints of consumers. Update 3:26 p.m.: I linked to it above, but before it becomes the only comment, please make sure to watch Hot Coffee. It's a vital documentary short not just for its own sake, but for the sake of realizing how little we actually know about the things we say we do. McDonald's Restaurants, and examines how the facts got lost, misreported, or, in some cases, distorted outright. In its latest installment, The New York Times' Retro Report looks back at Liebeck v. The facts have always been out there, but thanks to powerful McDonald's PR and a complacent and sensationalist media, they've been cast aside in favor of a more corporate-friendly call for tort reform. Nonetheless, Liebeck only ended up with $500,000 after all was said and done. It was the jury who decided to award Liebeck $2.9 million in punitive damages after her attorney demonstrated a willful disregard on McDonald's part for the scores who have been similarly scorched by their way-too-hot 190-degree coffee over the previous decade. Liebeck only sued McDonald's to cover the cost of her medical bills after company threw an insulting $800 worth of hush money at her. She suffered horrific third-degree burns that required skin grafts to repair. Then-79-year-old Stella Liebeck was sitting inside a park car when the spill occurred. Most people say they know some of the facts: An old lady from New Mexico who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself while driving successfully sued the company for a million bucks by claiming their coffee was too hot.īut most people don't know any of the facts. It is at once the most ridiculed and most misunderstood lawsuit in American history.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |