Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Really gotta read that case to know why that woman got a settlement (that was reduced a ton on appeal).
She had to get skin grafts, folks. And there were internal memorandum from McDonalds execs acknowledging they were serving that shit way too hot but that it made the restaurants smell better so they did it anyway as a business strategy. And if you want to punish them for knowingly serving a thing that can hurt people in the name of selling more McMuffins, then the award has to be BIG because they're a billion dollar enterprise.
The McDonalds verdict made a lot of sense when you start to break it down. And again - it was reduced on appeal anyway.
|
Yeah, people just rolled eyes and bitched about horrible lawyers and our poor justice system.
For me it was a great part of our system of justice. A business knew their product was dangerous to the public but kept it that way because it made them more money.
Lawyers and bad publicity keep businesses from making that decision on a daily basis. That helps protect us consumers from dangers we don't know. It had to be a large settlement to modify their behavior.