During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

    • Exatron@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      The woman who received serious burns from McDonald’s overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.

    • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.comEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn’t a person so it’s not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.

    • Nusm@lemm.eeEnglish
      16·
      1 year ago

      I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -

      1. She wasn’t driving the car, her nephew was.
      2. The car wasn’t moving, he pulled over and stopped so she could put in the cream & sugar.
      3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the coffee that McDonald’s served was not consumable by a human because of the excessive temperature.
      4. She was hospitalized for 8 days with 3rd degree burns, followed by 2 years of medical treatment.
      5. She only sued for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.

      Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”

      She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.

      Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.

    • shuzuko@midwest.socialEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      Others have already very kindly explained how you’re completely, totally wrong, so I’ll just add:

      Neener neener, you’re a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D