Can this mother win this lawsuit?

>Fla. Woman Sues Over Baby's Overdose
>
>December 21, 2003 10:45 PM EST
>
>
>BARTOW, Fla. - A Florida woman is suing the baby sitter who gave her daughter a fatal dose of
>Benadryl, along with the maker of the drug and the pharmacy that allegedly sold the product.

Why is the drug manufacturer or the pharmacy involved? (Other than the fact that they have money).
Was the drug mislabelled? Was this an undisclosed side effect?

>Paula Burcham was sentenced in August to eight years in prison for giving 3 1/2-month-old Grace
>Fields a lethal dose of Benadryl.

Fine, sue the baby sitter.

>The child died from intoxication by diphenhydramine, the drug's active ingredient. The
>antihistamine and sedative is commonly used as a cough suppressant, a sleeping aid and in other
>medicines.
>
>Earlier this month, Tracy Fields, the child's mother, filed a wrongful death and product liability
>lawsuit against Burcham, Pfizer Inc., the New York-based maker of Benadryl; and the Perrigo Co.,
>which makes generic versions of the medicine.

It sounds like both Pfizer and Perrigo Co couldn't have BOTH manufactured the drug given to the
baby. Why are both named?

Explain what's wrong with the product that creates liability. It's a drug, and you can kill someone
with an overdose of almost any drug. (Heck, someone is charged with assault with a deadly weapon (5
gallons of water) for making someone drink that much water during a hazing incident, and nearly
killing them.)

>The lawsuit contends Burcham gave the child Benadryl with "willful disregard" for her safety
>because she wanted to quiet the baby.

Fine, sue the baby sitter. The case against the baby sitter seems fairly strong.

>Pfizer spokesman Tom Sanford said the company does not recommend people give Benadryl to infants.

Did it say this on the label? If so, what's the problem?

>Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into a
>bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.

Fine, sue the baby sitter.

>The lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and also names Clearwater-based Eckerd Corp., which
>owns the pharmacy that Fields says sold the medicine to Burcham. Other defendants are Polk County,
>the Polk County Health Department and the state Department of Children & Families.

Please explain what any of these people/organizations other than the baby sitter did wrong. The case
against anyone but the sitter seems groundless unless there are facts not mentioned here that
involve wrongdoing on their part.

>DCF spokesman Bill Spann said the agency does not comment on pending litigation, but he urged
>parents to carefully check the qualifications of day care providers.
>
>Burcham, 53, ran an unlicensed day care center out of her home.

Gordon L. Burditt

The article that you posted does not explain what faults of the drug companies were alleged. So
it is hard to say whether the mother will win or not, because we are not sure what are the
issues involved.

It would seem that at the center of the suit is probably failure of pfizer to disclose the risks of
taking benadryl by infants. If that is the case, I am not sure if others who said that the lawsuit
has no merit, are correct. If Benadryl is a deadly danger to infants, then Pfizer better say it on
the bottle.

i

In article <[email protected]>, Kids Korner wrote:
> Fla. Woman Sues Over Baby's Overdose
>
> December 21, 2003 10:45 PM EST
>
>
> BARTOW, Fla. - A Florida woman is suing the baby sitter who gave her daughter a fatal dose of
> Benadryl, along with the maker of the drug and the pharmacy that allegedly sold the product.
>
> Paula Burcham was sentenced in August to eight years in prison for giving 3 1/2-month-old Grace
> Fields a lethal dose of Benadryl.
>
> The child died from intoxication by diphenhydramine, the drug's active ingredient. The
> antihistamine and sedative is commonly used as a cough suppressant, a sleeping aid and in other
> medicines.
>
> Earlier this month, Tracy Fields, the child's mother, filed a wrongful death and product liability
> lawsuit against Burcham, Pfizer Inc., the New York-based maker of Benadryl; and the Perrigo Co.,
> which makes generic versions of the medicine.
>
> The lawsuit contends Burcham gave the child Benadryl with "willful disregard" for her safety
> because she wanted to quiet the baby.
>
> Pfizer spokesman Tom Sanford said the company does not recommend people give Benadryl to infants.
>
> Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into a
> bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
>
> The lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and also names Clearwater-based Eckerd Corp.,
> which owns the pharmacy that Fields says sold the medicine to Burcham. Other defendants are Polk
> County, the Polk County Health Department and the state Department of Children & Families.
>
> DCF spokesman Bill Spann said the agency does not comment on pending litigation, but he urged
> parents to carefully check the qualifications of day care providers.
>
> Burcham, 53, ran an unlicensed day care center out of her home.

I wonder if someone is claiming that the someone in the pharmacy told her to use it?

"Kids Korner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Fla. Woman Sues Over Baby's Overdose
>
> December 21, 2003 10:45 PM EST
>
>
> BARTOW, Fla. - A Florida woman is suing the baby sitter who gave her daughter a fatal dose of
> Benadryl, along with the maker of the drug and the pharmacy that allegedly sold the product.
>
> Paula Burcham was sentenced in August to eight years in prison for giving 3 1/2-month-old Grace
> Fields a lethal dose of Benadryl.
>
> The child died from intoxication by diphenhydramine, the drug's active ingredient. The
> antihistamine and sedative is commonly used as a cough suppressant, a sleeping aid and in other
> medicines.
>
> Earlier this month, Tracy Fields, the child's mother, filed a wrongful death and product liability
> lawsuit against Burcham, Pfizer Inc., the New York-based maker of Benadryl; and the Perrigo Co.,
> which makes generic versions of the medicine.
>
> The lawsuit contends Burcham gave the child Benadryl with "willful disregard" for her safety
> because she wanted to quiet the baby.
>
> Pfizer spokesman Tom Sanford said the company does not recommend people give Benadryl to infants.
>
> Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into a
> bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
>
> The lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and also names Clearwater-based Eckerd Corp.,
> which owns the pharmacy that Fields says sold the medicine to Burcham. Other defendants are Polk
> County, the Polk County Health Department and the state Department of Children & Families.
>
> DCF spokesman Bill Spann said the agency does not comment on pending litigation, but he urged
> parents to carefully check the qualifications of day care providers.
>
> Burcham, 53, ran an unlicensed day care center out of her home.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Gordon Burditt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into a
> >bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
>
> Fine, sue the baby sitter.

Yup, but she doesn't have money.

OTOH, the drug companies have billions. But this lady has no hope at all of seeing even a dime
of that money (based on what was printed here). Will likely be thrown out well before a trial,
I'm betting.

P. Tierney

Gordon Burditt writes:

> Why is the drug manufacturer or the pharmacy involved? (Other than the fact that they have money).

Because it is always Someone Else's fault, especially if Someone Else has money.

> Fine, sue the baby sitter.

But the baby sitter has no money.

> It sounds like both Pfizer and Perrigo Co couldn't have BOTH manufactured the drug given to the
> baby. Why are both named?

They both have money.

> Explain what's wrong with the product that creates liability.

Nothing. The idea is to get a jury to decide in your favor. Then you get lots of money from the big
bad rich corporations. Who cares about liability?

> Fine, sue the baby sitter. The case against the baby sitter seems fairly strong.

I agree ... but she doesn't have any money, so who cares?

> Fine, sue the baby sitter.

But SHE HAS NO MONEY. The whole idea of a lawsuit is to make lots of money.

> Please explain what any of these people/organizations other than the baby sitter did wrong.

They didn't do anything wrong, but they all have money.

> The case against anyone but the sitter seems groundless unless there are facts not mentioned here
> that involve wrongdoing on their part.

A lawsuit doesn't need to be well grounded; it only needs the sympathy of a jury.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Gordon Burditt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >The lawsuit seeks more than $15,000 in damages, and also names Clearwater-based Eckerd Corp.,
> >which owns the pharmacy that Fields says sold the medicine to Burcham. Other defendants are Polk
> >County, the Polk County Health Department and the state Department of Children & Families.
>
> Please explain what any of these people/organizations other than the baby sitter did wrong. The
> case against anyone but the sitter seems groundless unless there are facts not mentioned here that
> involve wrongdoing on their part.

They did nothing "wrong," except be profitable (private companies) or have a large tax base (public
safety agencies). The mother isn't going to get rich suing the now-imprisoned babysitter, so she
must cast her net a bit wider.

This is similar to the cause of the not-so-mysterious disappearance of OB/GYNs and FP/GPs who will
deliver babies: mom has little or no prenatal care and/or delivers a baby with some defect that
couldn't be prevented or detected, and the doc did nothing wrong. BUT the jury feels bad for the
grieving mother whose baby died or is messed up, and so, in contradiction to all medical evidence
and any semblance of logic, awards damages to "help bring closure." Doc's insurer pays the damages,
doc's malpractice premiums go way up, doc can't afford it and so retires or alters practice, and
there's one less physician delivering babies.

I really do feel bad for people who lose children due to circumstances like these, but to then
attempt to turn it into a lotto jackpot is just repulsive. Be sure to thank this "mother" the next
time you see her (or someone like her), because she's just caused your medical care to be just a bit
more expensive, and your taxes to be just a bit higher. Even if the suit is ultimately dismissed, it
will have cost many thousands of dollars to defend it that far.

Bill
--
Bill Peckenpaugh
[email protected]
http://www.plimu.com/bill.htm (Boring me...)
http://www.plimu.com/daniel.htm (The Amazing Daniel!)

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Marciosos8 Probertiosos8 wrote:

>
> "Jonathan Kamens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (Glenn Gilbreath Jr.) writes:
> > >And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> > >illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> > >coffee in her crotch!
> >
> > People on the rag about our out-of-control legal system frequently bring up this case as their
> > poster child of ridiculous law suits, but when doing so, they fail to mention the context of
> > the case.
> >
> > Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.
> >
> > The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
> > people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
> > failed to take any steps to address the situation.
> >
> > The high damages in this particular case were not intended to compensate the victim as much as
> > they were intended to make McDonald's "feel the pain" for its negligent behavior. Given its huge
> > income, it would not have felt any pain from a small award. Punishing the offender, not
> > rewarding the victim, is the point of punitive damages.
> >
> > >Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame
> > >someone else for everything that might possibly occur.
> >
> > I don't disagree with you that our culture of blame has gotten out of control. But the
> > McDonald's case you referenced isn't necessarily a good example of that.
>
> You are absolutely correct in you analysis of this case (you must have been reading my old posts
> on this subject). McDonald's was surely on notice that they had a major problem with regard to the
> excessively high temperature that the coffee was brewed and served it. They brewed it at those
> temperatures for purely economic reasons, and the jury said that they deserved to be hit hard for
> their attitude.

Furthermore, the woman who sued originally asked simply that McDonald's help with a few thousand
dollars in medical expenses.

SHe was eventually awarded less than a million dollars but she and McDonald's entered into some kind
of post-verdict agreement, the amount of which has never been revealed (as far as I know).

> One of the responses that has been made is that it is just 20 degrees above the usual brewing
> temperature. However, according to a friend of mine, who is a reconstructive plastic surgeon,
> temperature is related to potential injury logarithmically. He has even identified another
> potential source of problems. If you care to, email me for additional information at
> [email protected]
k

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, P. Tierney wrote:

>
> "Glenn Gilbreath Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <qgwFb.453625$275.1335687@attbi_s53> "P. Tierney"
> <[email protected]> writes:
> > >From: "P. Tierney" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can this mother win this lawsuit?
> > >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:35:02 GMT
> >
> >
> > >"Gordon Burditt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl
> > >> >into a bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
> > >>
> > >> Fine, sue the baby sitter.
> >
> > > Yup, but she doesn't have money.
> >
> > > OTOH, the drug companies have billions. But this lady has no hope at all of seeing even a
> > > dime of that money (based on what was printed here). Will likely be thrown out well before
> > > a trial, I'm betting.
> >
> >
> > Heh, And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for
> > making illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling
> > hot coffee in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable.
>
> I think that if people look at the specifics of each case, as well as a full range of cases
> instead of just cherry-picking, then they might reach a different conclusion.
>
> Reputation and reality do not always meet.
>
> > Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone
> > else for everything that might possibly occur.
>
> Who is to say that the right people won't be held responsible in this case? Give it a chance.
>

Contrary to popular opinion, most frivilous lawsuits never go to trial. And in many that do,
circumstances are often far different than what we were led to believe by way of the media. The
McDonald's coffee case is just one example:

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

GB>> Pfizer spokesman Tom Sanford said the company does not recommend people give Benadryl to
GB>> infants.

GB> Did it say this on the label? If so, what's the problem?

Probably the problem is exactly that it did NOT say that on the label.

GB> Please explain what any of these people/organizations other than the baby sitter did wrong.

They did not write on the label that giving multiple doses of their drug to an infant is dangerous,
and they will pay for that, same as whoever paid for not warning about the hot coffee. There are
countless possibilities here - besides the drugs, there are cars, tools, plastic bags, ........

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, bat wrote:

> JK> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too
> JK> hot.
>
> Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
> scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.
>

No it's not. Coffee that it is so hot as to cause third degree burns (that's what is was) is also
too hot for consumption (to be "drunk").

> Go to your kitchen, take instant coffee, read the instructions. They will say: "Add
> boiling water".
>
> Coffee is a hot drink. A hot drink is supposed to be hot.

How often do you tip a pan of boiling water to your lips and drink from it?

>
> JK> The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of
> JK> people being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It
> JK> failed to take any steps to address the situation.
>
> Maybe it's because way more people prefer their coffee hot.

Coffee can be hot without being hot enough to cause third degree burns.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, bat wrote:

> JK> You can't legitimately jump from the fact that Stella's attorneys were able to document 700
> JK> cases of scaldings over ten years to the *assumption* that those were the *only* cases of
> JK> scalding. Without doing a heck of a lot more research, there's no way to know how many
> JK> scaldings went unreported during that time.
>
> It still does not explain why McDonalds was liable. Obviously, people spill hot drinks on
> themselves on regular basis, at home, at work, in restaurant, wherever they drink hot drinks. Was
> McDonalds' coffee hotter than any other coffee or tea prepared by any coffee- or teamaker
> anywhere?

Yes. Homebrewed coffee is generally around 135-140, for example.

McDonald's was found only partially responsible.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Byron Canfield wrote:

> "Frisbee=AE MCNGP" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> > bat wrote:
> > >> Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too
> > >> hot.
> > >
> > > Not so. Coffee is supposed to be drunk, not spilled on the lap. It's the same as saying that
> > > scissors that wound the eye when stuck into it, are too sharp.
> >
> > Ah, but if you were to plunge scissors into your eyes, you would indeed expect to have some
> > severe damage. Do you expect spilled coffee from a restaurant to give you third degree burns?
>
> No matter how much you raise the temperature of water, it cannot cause th=
ird
> degree burns -- a third degree burn is charring of the skin.

What causes third-degree burns?

Third-degree burns are usually caused by:

*=09clothing on fire

*=09immersion in hot water

*=09contact with flames, hot objects, or electricity

*=09corrosive chemicals.

What are the symptoms of third-degree burns?

The skin may be white, or it may be black and leathery. There may be little pain in the burned area,
but the areas surrounding the burn may be quite painful.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/aha_burn3_crs.htm

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Nonymous wrote:

> > Yes, it was. Something in the neighborhood of 20-25 degrees hotter. Hot enough to induce third-
> > degree burns in seconds. McDonald's did this because the higher temperature tended to waft the
> > aroma of coffee about their restaurants more, even though their own consultants warned them of
> > the dangers of the higher temperature.
>
> I've never heard that one before. My understanding is that that they used whatever temp they used
> because supposedly they felt water at that temp made the best cup of coffee.

And what I read was that they chose that temperature because they assumed patrons wouldn't be
drinking the coffee right away since most were orders for coffee to go. I believe that to be the
reason they gave during the court case.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, dragonlady wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Schlafly"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Circe" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > with a normal usage. Opening the lid between the knees is not normal,
> > it's
> > > > very risky and unreasonable,
> > > Honestly, I can't imagine ANOTHER way of holding a cup of coffee while sitting in a car to
> > > remove the lid and add cream or sugar. What WOULD be a reasonable way of doing it, in your
> > > view?
> >
> > Most cars have coffee-holders.
> >
> >
>
> Spoken like someone who only drives newer cars in good condition . . .
>
> Neither of our old cars has cup holders. And the one in our newer car was poorly constructed and
> broke fairly quickly.
>

The cup holders in our car keep a cup upright by providing a loose, general fit so that cups of many
sizes can be accommodated. I would at least lean over and hold the cup with one hand if wanting to
remove a lid from hot liquid.

In article <qgwFb.453625$275.1335687@attbi_s53> "P. Tierney" <[email protected]> writes:
>From: "P. Tierney" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can this mother win this lawsuit? Date:
>Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:35:02 GMT

>"Gordon Burditt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into a
>> >bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
>>
>> Fine, sue the baby sitter.

> Yup, but she doesn't have money.

> OTOH, the drug companies have billions. But this lady has no hope at all of seeing even a dime
> of that money (based on what was printed here). Will likely be thrown out well before a trial,
> I'm betting.

> P. Tierney

Heh, And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot coffee
in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable. Too bad people can't be held responsible for
their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone else for everything that might possibly occur.
And some people posting to this newsgroup will wonder why they can't just walk into a pharmacy and
purchase any medication they think they need/want????? C U L8R! Wiz <{;-) Wizard57M Glenn Gilbreath
Jr. Registered Pharmacist http://members.surfbest.net/[email protected]/index.htm -- DOS
Internet, Close Windows and Keep the Internet Open! --

"Robert E. Lewis" <[email protected]> writes:
>For example, while the Mythbuster site points out 700 McDonald's coffee scaldings over ten years
>and describes McDonald's coffee sales as running $1.3 million per day, the Stella Awards site does
>the math and points out that this works out to just one injury per twenty-four million cups of
>coffee sold by McDonald's - which makes it sound a bit less as though the company was rampantly
>injuring people with its dangerous coffee.

This is an excellent example of how to lie with statistics.

You can't legitimately jump from the fact that Stella's attorneys were able to document 700 cases of
scaldings over ten years to the *assumption* that those were the *only* cases of scalding. Without
doing a heck of a lot more research, there's no way to know how many scaldings went unreported
during that time.

Furthermore, you can't assume that the $1.3 million per day in coffee sales figure is accurate for
the past ten years; it almost certainly isn't.

Furthermore, you can't assume that McDonald's had a policy of serving their coffee that hot for the
past ten years, or that in fact the equipment they were using in their restaurants for the entire
ten years was capable of keeping coffee that hot.

Furthermore, you can't assume that all McDonald's outlets served their coffee that hot for the
entire ten years, even if that was corporate policy. Some chains may have chosen to turn down the
temperature, perhaps because they thought it was dangerously hot ;-) or because patrons complained.

The proportion of the number of people injured to the number of units sold is remarkably low for the
majority of product liability claims. This has little bearing on whether there is in fact any
liability.

>For example, the Mythbuster site offers descriptions of the dangers of serving coffee at 180 - 185
>degrees Farenheit as offered as proof McDonald's was recklessly acting for purely economic reasons
>- The Stella Awards version points to the National Coffee Association's website on 'How To Brew
>Coffee' - and that 180-185­° is the recommended serving temperature for coffee.

The correct temperature for optimal taste has little relationship to the correct temperature for
optimal safety. Product manufacturers and retailers change their products all the time to make them
more safe in ways that make them "worse" in other ways. It's perfectly legitimate to argue that the
temperature at which you should serve coffee for your own personal use is too hot, safety-wise, for
a large-volume fast-food operation.

Given the quality of the hamburgers that McDonald's serves, surely you're not going to argue that
they always do things in a way that ensures the highest quality product possible.

"Glenn Gilbreath Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <qgwFb.453625$275.1335687@attbi_s53> "P. Tierney"
<[email protected]> writes:
> >From: "P. Tierney" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Can this mother win this lawsuit?
> >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:35:02 GMT
>
>
> >"Gordon Burditt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Prosecutors said Burcham never told paramedics she had poured three teaspoons of Benadryl into
> >> >a bottle of breast milk for the child. Burcham later denied it was to control behavior.
> >>
> >> Fine, sue the baby sitter.
>
> > Yup, but she doesn't have money.
>
> > OTOH, the drug companies have billions. But this lady has no hope at all of seeing even a
> > dime of that money (based on what was printed here). Will likely be thrown out well before a
> > trial, I'm betting.
>
>
> Heh, And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
> illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot
> coffee in her crotch! Sheesh, it's getting rather dispicable.

I think that if people look at the specifics of each case, as well as a full range of cases
instead of just cherry-picking, then they might reach a different conclusion.

Reputation and reality do not always meet.

> Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone
> else for everything that might possibly occur.

Who is to say that the right people won't be held responsible in this case? Give it a chance.

P. Tierney

[email protected] (Glenn Gilbreath Jr.) writes:
>And let's not forget that our legal system is getting a rather infamous reputation for making
>illogical decisions...I mean, come on, awarding some lady 3 million dollars for spilling hot coffee
>in her crotch!

People on the rag about our out-of-control legal system frequently bring up this case as
their poster child of ridiculous law suits, but when doing so, they fail to mention the
context of the case.

Coffee that is hot enough to cause second-degree burns when spilled on someone's lap is too hot.

The McDonald's which was sued after this particular incident had a history, on the record, of people
being injured by its coffee, of many people complaining that its coffee was too hot. It failed to
take any steps to address the situation.

The high damages in this particular case were not intended to compensate the victim as much as they
were intended to make McDonald's "feel the pain" for its negligent behavior. Given its huge income,
it would not have felt any pain from a small award. Punishing the offender, not rewarding the
victim, is the point of punitive damages.

>Too bad people can't be held responsible for their own actions, but rather seek to blame someone
>else for everything that might possibly occur.

I don't disagree with you that our culture of blame has gotten out of control. But the McDonald's
case you referenced isn't necessarily a good example of that.

JK> You can't legitimately jump from the fact that Stella's attorneys were able to document 700
JK> cases of scaldings over ten years to the *assumption* that those were the *only* cases of
JK> scalding. Without doing a heck of a lot more research, there's no way to know how many scaldings
JK> went unreported during that time.

It still does not explain why McDonalds was liable. Obviously, people spill hot drinks on themselves
on regular basis, at home, at work, in restaurant, wherever they drink hot drinks. Was McDonalds'
coffee hotter than any other coffee or tea prepared by any coffee- or teamaker anywhere?