Tort mcdonald

Tort Reform is the movement to limit the amount of money the injured can receive in a lawsuit. It is based on a perception that litigation is out of control. The McDonald's Coffee Case is the most cited example of how out of control things supposedly are. I have several Million dollar awards and Myth: This was a case of a greedy claimant looking for a deep pocket. Reality: Mrs. Liebeck spent six months attempting to convince McDonald's to pay $15,000 to $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.McDonald's responded with a letter offering $800. Mrs. Liebeck also asked McDonald's to consider changing the excessive temperature of its coffee so others would not be similarly harmed surprising that when McDonald's is a party to a lawsuit, the outcome of that lawsuit may have broad implications. This article examines the interaction between McDonald's, public policy, and tort law4 from both historical and social psychological perspectives. I demonstrate that certain tort cases involving McDonald's have ha A. Pelman v. McDonald's: Factual and Procedural History. 5 B. Preliminary Note: Differences Between the Pelman and Barber Suits. 6 II. The Pelman Original Complaint & McDonald's Defenses 8 A. The Consumer Fraud Protection Claims: Counts I and II. 9 B. The Tort Claims: Counts III - V. 11 III. First S.D.N.Y Court Opinion: January 22, 2003. 1

McDonald's stood by their coffee and took the case to trial. When it came out in the trial that McDonald's had received so many previous complaints and maintained the temperature of their coffee, the jury was not happy. They found McDonald's 80% responsible for the incident and awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages. They also. McDonald Toole Wiggins, P.A. represents companies throughout the country in toxic tort cases, where allegations of business or personal injury damages are based on both statutory and common law remedies, such as negligence, fraud, fear of future disease, medical monitoring, failure to warn, trespass, and diminution in value claims Tort Law : Personal Injury and Property Damage. Most of us heard of the McDonald's coffee case where seventy-nine-year-old Stella Liebeck was awarded damages of almost US $ 3 Million because of McDonald's served her a coffee that was too hot. Liebeck bought a cup of coffee for US$0.49 at a drive-thru McDonald's in New Mexico and. Therefore, the exact amount of damages McDonald's paid to Mrs. Liebeck is unknown. After this verdict, McDonald's decided to lower the temperature of its coffee. Nominal Damages: There are situations where a plaintiff proves their tort case, but a jury finds they have suffered little if any harm

Deserturi. Poftă de dulce? Ce să fie, plăcintă, înghețată, iaurt cu fructe sau shake Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico. On Feb. 27, 1992, her grandson drove her to the local McDonald's where she ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window. Her grandson parked the car to allow Mrs. Liebeck to add cream and sugar to her coffee Based on its finding that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages against McDonald's. Punitive damages are a way that a jury punishes and deters corporate bad behavior, and the number was calculated based upon two days of McDonald's coffee sales Tort Reform. The ruling of the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case had major ramifications for the corporate world, and how they handled lawsuits. One of the biggest changes to come from this was the idea of tort reform. Tort is the term used for to describe claims that result personal injury, medical mal-practice, and defective.

  1. ute) movie which traces the evolution (and importance) of trial by jury and tort law. The main gallery features cases which made a difference not only to the injured victims, but to everyone: Cases like the Ford Pinto, Liebeck v. McDonalds, and the tobacco and asbestos litigation, among others
  2. McDonald's. Stella Liebeck is to tort reform, what Michael Jordan is to basketball. She embodies and symbolizes the Frivolous Lawsuit, The Runaway Jury, The Over-Litigiousness of America, Jackpot Justice, and everything that is wrong with the civil justice system. Or does she
  3. McDonald's knew what its customers wanted and they wanted hot coffee and so that's what McDonald's gave them. Well, this is some of the evidence that was presented to the jury in ridiculous tort cases. For example, they lost . 2 ten different awards. I'll start with third place. Third place, it says Amber Carson of Lancaster
  4. Tort reform has come under public scrutiny, as many people find publicized awards in civil lawsuits to be shockingly large. One of the most famous tort lawsuits in recent history in the case of a 79-year old woman who sued McDonald's restaurants when she spilled her coffee, and was burned. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurant
  5. Stella Liebeck Vs Mcdonald 's Restaurant 's Tort Lawsuit Essay 1847 Words | 8 Pages. INTRODUCTION In this essay, I will discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck vs McDonald's Restaurant 's tort lawsuit, where the plaintiff was severely burned after wasting coffee purchased from the drive-through window of the restaurant, into her lap

A lawsuit against McDonald's Corp. will be an early test of whether workers can use a longstanding legal doctrine against public nuisances to force employers to keep them safe from the coronavirus.. Public nuisance claims, which originated hundreds of years ago in land-use disputes to protect society from harm, are common in modern litigation involving environmental pollution, lead paint. You may be familiar with — and even outraged by — the famous lawsuit against McDonald's by Stella Liebeck who was burned by hot coffee. The jury's $2.7 million award has long been a poster child for tort reform (the judge actually reduced her award to $480,000). That lawsuit brought change though - albeit not to United Airlines McDonald At Law. October 21 ·. McDonald At Law sponsors local United Disability Service Dogs who are trained as pups for over two years by a team of dedicated volunteers and professionals. After the training is complete, they are partnered with people who have a mobility disability, or autism to help them live a fuller life Ms. McDonald defends entities on claims asserting various alleged violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and matters under Title VII, the ADA/ADAAA, the ADEA, the FLSA, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and a host of federal and state tort and contract claims. She also defends architects and. Combined, Liebeck's losses from the incident (medical bills, loss of work, etc.) were a little under $20,000, and she offered to settle with McDonald's for that amount. They refused and suggested less than $1,000. This prompted her to obtain legal counsel. Her lawyer sought to compromise with the fast-food giant for $300,000

McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases. Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial The True Facts of the McDonald's Coffee Case. In 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79 year-old woman, purchased a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru at the Albuquerque, New Mexico McDonald's. Stella was seated in the passenger seat and her grandson was driving. They pulled over so that Stella could put cream and sugar in the coffee In Lieback's hot coffee case against McDonald's, the trial judge reduced the $2.7 million punitive damages verdict to $480,000, while compensatory damages were reduced from $200,000 to.

Excavator Cake - CakeCentral

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against McDonald's.. Plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant The tort law allowed lawsuits of the strangest type to be filed in courts in the U.S. The lawsuit filed against McDonald's by some overweight people accusing McDonald's for making them overweight is a glaring example. It resembled as if McDonald's has forced these people to eat its fast food products and thus had made them overweight Introduction Liebeck vs. McDonald's was a known case in the early 90's because to most it was a frivolous case and an easy way for one to get rich. The case involved a 79 year old woman who happened to have spilled hot coffee onto her lap purchased from McDonald's and then suffered severe third degree burns High Court. Citations: [2002] EWHC 490 (QB). Facts. The claimants were children between the ages of 4 and 16. Each had been injured by the coffee sold at McDonald's. In most cases, the cup of coffee had fallen or a tray or table. This had caused the lid to fall off the cup and the hot contents had splashed onto the child Perhaps one of the most famous personal injury lawsuits, Liebeck versus McDonald's involves Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who spilled 190°F McDonald's coffee into her lap. According to the American Museum of Tort Law , Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on over 16 percent of her body including her inner thighs and genitals

McDonald's Corp., No. 16-7124 (D.C. Cir. 2018) Annotate this Case. Justia Opinion Summary. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under D.C. tort law after their son was killed in a drunken brawl outside a bar. The DC Circuit held, based on precedent, that the allegations, if true, stated a claim against the bars under D.C. law. Therefore. Bogle v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490 is a Tort Law case concerning Product Liability and Defences. Facts: In Bogle v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490, each of the claimants (most of them children) were injured. Furthermore, this occurred by spillage of hot tea and coffee served at McDonald's restaurants McDonald is admitted to practice in New York and in the state and federal courts of New Jersey. Ms. McDonald joined McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney in 1991, after a three-year association with McCarter & English where she was involved in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation as well as asbestos and toxic-tort litigation on behalf of various. The Grand Rapids toxic tort attorneys of McDonald Pierangeli Macfarlane, PLLC, provide legal services throughout Michigan. Call 616-426-9609 A $600,000 jury verdict for losing psychic powers sounds ridiculous, and likely the grossly misunderstood McDonald's coffee spill case, Haimes v. Temple University has been abused as a tool to whip up on trial lawyers and the tort system. But as with the McDonald's case, Haimes got twisted in the telling

Liebeck v. McDonald'

  1. antly Black neighborhoods.
  2. al defense. Our firm has built a well-respected reputation among the legal community for our ability to tackle difficult cases
  3. Frank McDonald is a Florida Bar Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, the highest recognition of competency, professionalism and expertise awarded by the Bar. Throughout his entire career as a trial lawyer in private practice, he has defended product manufacturers and other business entities in complex tort litigation in state and federal courts.

The Truth Behind the Infamous McDonald's Hot Coffee Case. by A.J. Serafini. On February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck from Albuquerque, New Mexico ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson. With news that Brown may be seeking legal action against Gorilla Glue, the discourse has brought up a figure well known in tort law: the McDonald's Coffee Lady.. In 1992, 79-year-old.

McTorts: The Social and Legal Impact of McDonald's Role in

  1. McDonald's coffee spill tort case became a widely known court case in the United States and internationally. When this case appeared on the news it was it brought a lot of attention and made a mockery of by radio talk-show hosts, television and newspaper editors around the world and throughout the United States in a case where a 79 year.
  2. One of those supposedly frivolous lawsuits is a case that was so badly, and loudly, distorted by tort reformers that it remains a topic of discussion today, more than two decades after it was filed. That is the case involving an elderly woman who was badly burned when she spilled coffee she purchased at a McDonald's drive-thru
  3. In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner.
  4. 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
  5. McDonald's has been a widespread tort case for its outrageous compensatory damages after, the plaintiff spilled coffee in her inner legs causing a third-degree burn. Based on actual facts, the plaintiff, 79 years old Stella Liebeck, ordered a coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque
  6. es our civil justice system, by profiling four so-called frivolous lawsuits, including the now infamous McDonald's hot coffee case. At the center of the debate is our country's tort system. Until now, those who wish to reform the tort system have played the role of the squeaky wheel

Case Law Analysis: Tort Law 2 In 1992, the case Liebeck v. McDonald's became a pivotal point in Tort Law, and lead to a rise in frivolous lawsuits across the country. In 1992, Stella Liebeck, 72, and her grandson went through a McDonald's drive thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico and ordered a coffee. Liebeck's grandson was driving the vehicle, when he pulled over to allow his. McDonald's Restaurants. 8 (hereinafter the McDonald's Coffee Case). Given its extensive and enduring presence in our popular media, the McDonald's Coffee Case probably supplies more common knowledge about the United States civil justice system than any other single law-suit.

5 Famous Tort Cases That Blew the Public's Mind - In

Another argument for tort reform is that frivolous cases are the ones getting these enormous verdicts. One of the favorite cases to villainize is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, the infamous McDonald's coffee case View TORT LAW.docx from BUS-FP FP2021 at Capella University. Liebeck v. McDonald's Justin Guzzi Capella University June 21, 2020 Liebeck v. McDonald's I. II. III. Parties: Liebeck v In April 2015, McDonald J held that the respondents had proved all of the requirements to establish the tort save for loss and damage. McDonald J held that the respondents had not proved that they suffered any of the various categories of loss alleged, which included being prevented from recovering the Judgment Debt by the Donation Agreements. Effects of Tort Reform for Fast Food 1 1. Introduction In 2002 McDonald's corporation was the subject of two high profile lawsuits alleging liability for weight-related health claims. In the first, Caesar Barber, a severely obese 56 year old man from the Bronx, accused McDonald's and othe In life, disputes are inevitable. McDonald Sanders has multiple attorneys who can guide you through the dispute resolution process. We help you analyze whether your dispute can be resolved without litigation, such as through informal settlement negotiations or mediation. If litigation is necessary, then our talented team will strive to resolve your litigation effectively and efficiently

McDonald, based on injuries that Pelletier allegedly received after falling on ice outside of the Portland Police Department. Because the plaza where he fell is an appurtenance to a public building within the meaning of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2) (2020), we affirm. I. BACKGROUND [¶2] The following facts are undisputed McDonaldsCase. Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's injuries-which included 3rd degree burns across her groin. Tort law refers to lawsuits like the McDonald's case. In the mid 1990s, Republicans made a push for tort reform: reducing the risk of frivolous lawsuits through legislation that capped the damages that can be awarded in lawsuits

Environmental and Toxic Tort McDonald Toole Wiggins, P

  1. sometimes you got a feelin in your shelloriginal tweet: https://twitter.com/TortoisesDaily/status/1347111293161852928Music: https://youtu.be/s-R3GTzZU14 Supp..
  2. A few weeks ago, I was preparing jury voir dire questions for a short trial. Some of the questions that I prepared involved various issues of tort reform and other items currently in the media that dealt with negative events involving personal injury lawyers.One area that always has to be covered is the McDonald's hot coffee case, because most potential jurors have been indoctrinated.
  3. McDonald's became a flashpoint in the debate over tort reform. The Hot Coffee case was used to convince the public that the justice system is somehow flawed. It sought to cover up the truth about punitive damages - that often the only way to convince a corporation to change its ways is to hit it where it really hurts: in the pocketbook
  4. Vaccine Law Case Compliments of Versuslaw Plantiff must file vaccine comp act claim before filing tort claim - McDonald v. Lederle Laboratories, 341 N.J.Super. 369, 775 A.2d 528 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 2001
  5. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform.A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled.
  6. Liebeck v. McDonald's is an important case in tort history. Many think that it was frivolous and excessive, but others say that it was meaningful litigation, and a story about holding corporations liable for their negligence. HBO released a documentary about tort reform titled Hot Coffee, which covered much of the case

McDonald's Restaurants (Hot Coffee), and Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. (Childhood Obesity), I demonstrate that certain tort cases involving McDonald's have had particularly important social and legal consequences that I attribute to McDonald's special influence over the human psyche, beginning in childhood The case involving Mcdonald's company and Stella Liebeck is an example of a tort case(HOT COFFEE, a Documentary Feature Film, n.d.).Tort law involves the balance between running one's interests freely without interferring with or harming others and meeting compensation when such harm occurs Under tort law, Ms. Liebeck attempted to pursue compensation for her medical bills in the form of a $20,000 settlement with McDonald's. You can see, at this point, that Ms. Liebeck was only asking for a small percentage more than her actual and expected medical costs

Tort Law : Personal Injury and Property Damage - American

GENERAL LAW OF TORTS Law 101: Fundamentals of the La

  1. McDonald's: Business Analysis. Ultius. 08. Oct. 2014. The Liebeck case is the famous coffee case launched against McDonald's for continuing to serve hot coffee at dangerously high temperatures. This sample paper explores the facts behind the lawsuit and concludes that Liebeck was more than justified in suing the company for its poor.
  2. al and civil, I was not aware of Tort law. According to Lau & Johnson (2011). A tort can be broadly defined as a civil wrong, other than breach of contract Simply stated, a Tort is some type of civil wrong that causes harm or loss
  3. For quality legal services, you can find attorneys & lawyers by state, popular cities, and type of legal practice. Get free legal documents and law info
  4. A tort is a harmful act that causes damages to another. In an intentional torts claim, the defendant is alleged to have harmed someone else on purpose. A defendant may be found liable to a plaintiff for committing a tort if the action was (a) intentional, as in the case of a crime; or (b) unintentional but negligent, because the defendant did.

Deserturi McDonald'

Tort cases and books on tort law identify different kinds of wrongfulness, Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Now, take the opposite side. The difference between intentional and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional elements that the defendant acted with. Another key to your success is our use of technology specifically designed to manage product liability and mass tort cases. It includes a database used to coordinate multiple jurisdictions, report on the case status, and identify trends in the litigation process. This database system, along with a comprehensive calendaring and docketing system. (In the famous McDonalds Coffee Case, Stella Liebeck a 79 year old woman sued the company for the burns she received from very hot coffee served by McDonalds. Jury awarded her $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages; settlement took place outside the court through a post-verdict settlement)

Liebeck v McDonalds: How the Hot Coffee Lawsuit Led to

Basic Tort Law-Arthur Best 2014-06-26 Arthur Best and David Barnes draw on their years of experience in teaching and writing about torts to ensure that Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems is user friendly for mcdonalds-operations-and-training-manual 3/4 Downloaded from tsb.wecounsel.com on August 4, 2021 by guest The substance of the action here is that McDonald was the victim of an intentional tort; we are not faced with the kind of true negligence action we examined in Fabre. Accordingly, we agree with the reasoning of the Slawson court as to this issue and hold that section 768.81, by its own terms, does not apply to the instant case to mandate.

Products Liability Law: Explaining the McDonald's coffee case. Many people have heard about the elderly woman who was burned by coffee she purchased at a McDonald's drive-thru. Many people believe that the woman herself was driving the car when she spilled the coffee, and that she received over $3,000,000. However, neither of these beliefs is true Stella Leibeck and the Mcdonalds Case One of the most recognizable cases involving Tort Reform is the McDonalds Hot Coffee case. The misconception is Stella Liebach was an elderly woman who spilled hot coffee on herself while driving. She sued McDonalds for damages and the media played it out to be one big joke The No. 1 favorite whipping post for the tort reformers is the The McDonald's coffee case. Mencimer recounts the case, stripped bare of outrage and talking points. Septuagenarian Stella Liebeck was from a family of conservative New Mexico Republicans and did not initially intend to file suit for the third-degree burns she suffered. The tort system is a remarkably inefficient means of performing this task, which is why litigation reform is needed. Commenter MSR: One other point about the McDonald's case that should be mentioned here. The award to the woman for injuries was about $130,000 or 13 times her original request

The Fallacy of Tort Reform and Hot Coffe

Scott Fraser is an Associate Attorney at McDonald Worley, and he also serves as Of Counsel for Junell & Associates. Starting in fall of 2018, Scott will teach negotiations as an Adjunct Professor at South Texas College of Law. Scott is dedicated to several McDonald Worley mass tort dockets, including Transvaginal Mesh, IVC Filter. Delivery & Pickup Options - 23 reviews of McDonald's We stopped in this McDonalds for breakfast just before the sun came up on our way home to IL. They were friendly, they got our order right, and it was fast. I can't ask for much more from McDonalds. It was a little cold in there, but I'll forgive them : Today, I wanted to share a case that I came across which I found quite interesting. Known as the 'Hot Coffee Case', the case of Liebeck v Mcdonald's Restaurant's, decided, in 1994 paved the way for a change in Tort Law across the United States. This case stemmed from an incident which took place on 27th February 1992

Tort Reform Liebeck v

About Us - The American Museum of Tort La

The tort cases Liebeck verses McDonalds and Pearson verses Chung were both highly publicized cases that were coined as frivolous lawsuits that have a negative impact on the economy and the way we conduct ourselves in society. According to Phillip Howard, Chairman of Common Goods, a legal reform coalition, Tort claims cost the country. Despite this, McDonald's own witnesses testified that the company had no intention of either reducing the heat or warning its customers that the coffee was dangerously hot. When the media publicized the case, many lawmakers were quick to turn it into an advertisement for tort reform, which was the subject of hot debate in the Republican-led Senate McDonald's case, Young Man #2: A tort is a piece of I think a tort is a piece of bread that looks like a hoagie roll, but isn't a hoagie roll

The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case: DisTORTion Reform Gruber

Initially, McDonald's offered the woman an $800 settlement. Saladoff is an attorney and reminded interviewers that plaintiffs have a right to a trial by jury under the 7 th Amendment. Supporters of tort reform want to take away that constitutional right along with fair and just rewards for plaintffs' injuries Jacksonville, Illinois (Wand)-A man is behind the bar after beating McDonald's early in the morning, and police are still wary of several suspects. At around 4:19 am on Saturday, police responded to a call for turmoil at McDonald's on West Morton Avenue. Police officers found an unconscious victim in the parking lot. The EMS arrived

Get reviews, hours, directions, coupons and more for Mcdonald & Mccabe at 225 W Wacker Dr Ste 2100, Chicago, IL 60606. Search for other Litigation & Tort Attorneys in Chicago on The Real Yellow Pages® McDonald's Restaurants. And my, is he wrong. Here's the actual facts: An 80-year-old woman, Stella Liebeck, is in the passenger seat of car in McDonald's drive-thru, with her grandson driving; After accepting a coffee in a Styrofoam cup and driving forward, the grandson stopped so that his grandmother could add cream and sugar to her coffee (The cups were part of the problem, which McDonald's was fully aware of.) Tort reform has benefited the corporations, who were behind the public misinformation about the need for tort reform. Now, the corporations no longer worry about being sued for malfeasance, product liability, etc. McDonald's still serves their coffee, and tea, as hot. She's the woman whose lawsuit against McDonald's has become the go-to parable for proponents of tort reform.. The new must-see documentary Hot Coffee powerfully exposes the myths behind.

Tort Law - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processe

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16. When McDonald's restaurants reopen, consumers should expect stickers on the floor encouraging social distancing and the end of self-serve beverage bars. Workers wearing masks might check in with a. McDonald's obesity suit tossed. U.S. judge says complaint fails to prove chain is responsible for kids' weight gain. February 17, 2003: 2:46 PM EST. By Jonathan Wald, CNN Writer. NEW YORK (CNN. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a.

Canadian Coffer Seller Makes Fun of Hot Coffee Warnings