Products Liability at McDonald’s

products liability defective products new jersey philadelphia attorney We’ve all heard about Liebeck v. McDonald’s, more commonly known as the “McDonald’s Coffee Case” of 1994. It was a products liability case that became, as ABC News called it, the “poster child of excessive lawsuits.” It’s easy, without knowing the facts of the case, to scoff at someone who would sue for being burnt by hot coffee.
Coffee is coffee, it’s supposed to be hot! But, is it supposed to be hot enough to cause third degree burns?

Stella Liebeck was 79 when she was in the passenger seat of her Ford Probe, as her grandson drove her through the drive thru of a Mcdonald’s Fast Food Restaurant in New Mexico. He pulled the car over so that Stella could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella put the cup between her knees and lifted the lid slightly. At that point, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Her cotton sweatpants absorbed the coffee, holding it to her skin for over a minute and a half.
The coffee scalded her thighs, buttocks, and groin. At the hospital, it was determined that she had sustained third degree burns on 6% of her skin, and lesser burns on 16% of her skin. She remained in the hospital for 8 days and underwent skin grafting. In that time she lost 20% of her body weight, reducing her weight to 83 pounds, and causing an additional 2 years of treatment.

Liebeck sought to settle for $20,000 to cover her medical bills, which amounted to $11,000. McDonald’s offered $800. After McDonald’s refused her offer, Liebeck retained attorney Morgan Reed, who brought a case against McDonald’s, accusing them of “gross negligence” in making a product that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.”
Reed made a settlement offer of $90,000, which McDonald’s rejected. He made another offer of $300,000, followed by a mediator suggested offer of $225,000. McDonald’s rejected both of them, and the case went to trial.

In trial, Reed exposed that McDonald’s was serving coffee at temperatures of 180-190 degrees Farenheight. At this temperature, the coffee could cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Reed also revealed during litigation that between 1982 and 1992, McDonald’s received over 700 reports of people being burned by coffee, and had settled claims for scalding injuries for over $500,000.
In the end, Liebeck was awarded just under $600,000 in punitive and compensatory damages.

Tort Reformists call this a “frivolous” lawsuit, and claim that it’s cases like this that are stressing the economy. But a case like this is far from frivolous. McDonald’s was serving coffee that had the potential to truly harm their customers. As we can see, it did. No labeled warning can replace a manufacturer’s responsibility to keep consumer safety a number one priority.

Product Liability Attorneys at the Mininno Law Office

Nowadays, we see more and more fault in our system regarding foreign manufacturers and their seeming exemption from U.S. regulations on product liability. But even native manufacturers are producing products that are defective and unsafe. Defective products are dangerous, and potentially harmful or fatal.

If you have been injured by a defective product, you may be entitle to compensation. Contact the Mininno Law Office for a free case evaluation, or call us for a free consultation at (856) 833-0600 in New Jersey, or (215) 567-2380 in Philadelphia.

CONSUMER ALERT – CHILD SAFETY SEAT PERFORMANCES ARE UNDER PAR

“In a government crash-test video, the infant car seat flies off its base, smashing the baby dummy – still strapped into the carrier – upside down and face-first into the back of the driver’s seat.” (Patricia Callahan, Chicago Tribune).

A deep look into the data of several tests carried out by the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission (NHTSA) has revealed an industry-wide problem regarding the testing of safety for child car seats.

In a crash test study by the NHTSA, a total of 31 child safety seats flew off their bases or exceeded injury limits in a series of frontal crashes. These results however, were never released to the public. Why? Because the performance of these child safety seats was not the primary concern of the testers; they were only concerned with the general safety of the vehicles being crashed. It took a Chicago Tribune investigation to unearth these troubling results, and bring it to the public attention.

What this newspaper investigation has revealed a possible lack of rigor in the safety testing for child safety seats. Perhaps more important however, is the revelation that parents simply are not given any information they need in order to make an educated purchase. “You can compare the safety ratings for cars, but not for the safety of car seats. Parents often have no way which seat fits best in their car and whether conventional wisdom is accurate.” (Patricia Callahan, Chicago Tribune)

Joan Claybrook, president emeritus of the advocacy group Public Citizen and former administrator in the NHTSA was straightforward in her response, stating, “What you’ve uncovered totally reveals the flaws in the current safety standard and also NHTSA’s negligence in not reporting this to the public.” Fortunately however, this recent uproar has come to the attention of the newly installed Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who in a written statement said he ordered a, “complete top to bottom review of child safety seat regulations,” while also directing the staff of the NHTSA to make results “more available” to the public.

At this point, it appears that the Federal Government has gotten the message, responding that it will toughen safety standards and increase public accessibility to results when testing child safety seats. Unfortunately, the corporate world has not gotten the message. Among the failing restraint systems in the federal test was a product called the “SafeSeat,” by the Graco Corporation. In a response to the Tribunes investigation, Graco released a written statement explaining that the failed seat was, “anomalous, not a repeatable event,” and that the tests were, “worthless for the purposes of evaluating and comparing infant restraint system performance.”

It appears that there is a lot left to accomplish in order to get the government to properly regulate the safety of infant restraint systems, and to get corporations to live up to those standards. In the mean time however, the best weapon a parent can have while purchasing a child safety seat is knowledge of important safety factors and an ability to compare across brands. If you are currently searching for a child safety seat for your family, please visit KeepKidsHealthy’s website on child safety seats.

If your family has been victim to a failing child safety seat, please do not hesitate to contact an attorney immediately.

Contact an Attorney in PA
Contact an Attorney in NJ

Mininno Law Office: In The News

The following is a letter from John Mininno the Courier Post (South Jersey), published on May 24, 2008:

Re: “White House moves to make it harder to sue businesses” (C-P May 13).

Thanks to the Courier-Post for highlighting the Bush administration’s latest “war” — this one against people who have been injured by defective products. As reported, big business, pharmaceutical giants and insurance lobbyists have spent their considerable resources lobbying the White House to use federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement rules making it virtually impossible for victims to be compensated when injured, killed or maimed by defective or dangerous products.

Congress and the courts have both previously rejected this back-door tactic. Why? Probably because of the outrage from American consumers who, this year alone, have seen toxic dog food, poison toothpaste, lead paint toys, unsafe child seats, contaminated heparin and dangerous drugs such as Vioxx and Trasylol. Every day, hundreds of lives are lost and thousands are injured from defective products, drugs and malpractice.

The Bush administration’s secretive tactics seek to take away our constitutional right to a trial by jury in civil cases. Juries make our community safer by ensuring defective product manufacturers, drug companies and negligent doctors meet their full responsibility for any harm they cause. If a drunk driver chooses to get behind the wheel of a car and kills a working father, shouldn’t his family have the right to go to a jury and seek full compensation? Why, then, should a large corporation be shielded from a jury when it produces a dangerous or defective product that hurts our loved ones?

If the insurance lobbyists and the Bush administration truly want to use federal agencies such as the FDA or the Consumer Product Safety Commission to “curb lawsuits,” then I suggest they require these agencies to focus on their real mission. Ensuring that products and drugs are thoroughly tested and deemed safe before making their way to American consumers. Safe consumers have no reason to file a lawsuit. It’s really just that simple.

JOHN MININNO

Collingswood

John Mininno Featured in South Jersey Magazine’s 2008 Awesome Attorneys

On behalf of the legal staff at Mininno Law Office, we are excited to report that John Mininno, Esq. will be featured in the 2008 edition of South Jersey Magazine’s Awesome Attorneys!

To all of our friends and family, please show your appreciation for all of John’s hard work and dedicated service by voting for him in the areas of medical malpractice, personal injury and products liablity.

Click here to vote for John Mininno as South Jersey’s 2008 Awesome Attorney!