HOT COFFEE OR HOT AIR? THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE

It is ironic that one of the most famous personal injury cases in American jurisprudence is also the most misunderstood. When you think of the McDonald's coffee case, which of the following is true and which is false?
 

  • The Plaintiff almost died from her burns T/F
  • McDonalds knew the temperature of their coffee
  • would cause third degree burns in 3 secondsT/F
  • The Plaintiff was a passenger rather than a driverT/F
  • The Plaintiff received far less than a million dollarsT/F

To see how you scored, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE

The falsities reported about the coffee case in 1992 are mind boggling; but the ruse that followed by then big tobacco employee, Karl Rove (yes, that Karl Rove), is even harder to believe. Rove saw an opportunity to fend off liability by matching up the coffee case with terms like "frivolous lawsuit" and "tort reform." The excellent documentary "Hot Coffee", which streams free on Amazon prime, is a fascinating account of how an entire society was lied to so that insurance companies and big corporate could increase their profits by reducing other "frivolous" lawsuits.
At Baker & Slider, we did not achieve the highest possible ethical rating from Martindale-Hubbell by filing "frivolous" lawsuits. We adhere to a core philosophy that the justice system is a gift, not a game. If a potential client asks us to pursue a claim that we perceive without merit, we reject it. We choose our personal injury cases carefully to ensure that we represent client who have legitimate injuries caused by no fault of their own.
There is no better feeling than representing a client who needs our help; and, doing our very best to win their case. Personal injury cases are a great example of that because the law clearly requires an at-fault party to compensate injuries to another. When an insurance company refuses to pay what is reasonable and fair in such a situation, hoping it can spin the situation by using terms like "frivolous", that is where we come in. We do not represent Clients with unreasonable expectations of a windfall; and, even if we did, despite the common misconception to the contrary, they would never receive it just because we asked.
At Baker & Slider, we fight for Clients who have real cases in an effort to achieve real justice. Take that Karl Rove!