Stella Awards

[collecture]

I love these, but it gets me very angry at our society! 

It's time again for the annual "Stella Awards"! For those unfamiliar with these awards, they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the McDonald's in New Mexico where she purchased the coffee. You remember, she took the lid off the coffee and put it between her knees while she was driving.   Who would ever think one could get burned doing that, right?

That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S. You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head. So keep your head scratcher handy.

Here are the Stella's for the past year:

7TH PLACE:
Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

6TH PLACE:
Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles , California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

Go ahead, grab your head scratcher.

5TH PLACE:
Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage.  Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut.  Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT, days on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue Mental Anguish.  Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish. We should all have this kind of anguish.

Keep scratching. There are more...

4TH PLACE:
Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

Grrrrr ... Scratch, scratch.

3RD PLACE:
Amber Carson of Lancaster , Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. What ever happened to people being responsible for their own actions?

Scratch, scratch, scratch. Hang in there; there are only two more Stella's to go...

2ND PLACE:
Kara Walton, of Claymont , Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000....oh, yeah,plus dental expenses. Go figure.

1ST PLACE:  (May I have a fanfare played on 50 kazoos please)

This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased a new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.  Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned.  Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down....
$1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just incase Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

Are we, as a society, getting more stupid...?

[bubba]

Tom  ...  Thanks for posting this... You just gave me some good ideas! I knew this working stuff is the wrong way to get ahead.   

[BrianB]

Wow....That's truly sad. Our "judicial" system is very broken. What's worse? The people that put themselves in situations out of their own ignorance/stupidity or the jury's/judges that actually entertain their cases??

I see the common denominator being completely unmentioned. LAWYERS! Money hungry LAWYERS! Root cause analysis made easy! We were talking about the unrest in Pakistan yesterday at work during a coffee break and one of the guys involved in the conversaation lamented at how bad he felt for the protestors that were being beaten and jailed.

I thought about it for a second and replied something to the effect of, "Beating and throwing them into jail...A bunch of lawyers. And that's wrong, how?"

[Kilroy]

Not to be be a downer, but the first place award has been identified by Snopes.com as an urban legend, which makes me wonder how many of the other stories are factual.

And in fairness to Stella, who sued McDonald's over the hot coffee, what the media  forgets to add when referencing  the award is  she suffered 3rd degree burns - that coffee was way beyond health department  acceptable levels of temperture.

[collecture]

I agree, but there are plenty of frivolous cases out there and even more people scheming money from insurance companies - all driving our rates up, up and up!
Not that it was frivolous, but you should see the house that one of the lawyers in the tobacco lawsuits built. It is in Dallas just north of Northwest Hwy. and west of Preston Road - the thing is a monster - larger than most castles!
All the money in those cases should go right to healthcare!
Our legal system is and lawyers

[Jim]

Earlier in our government history, attorneys were banned from holding public offices!
When and where did we go so wrong on changing this philosophy or policy...?

[Pat Pixley]

Oh BOY I like this stuff    Tom's Right stupid law suit's drive the insurance rate's up on these business in turn the business has to raise the sale price to cover the cost of the insurance
and we pay more and the lawyer get rich.

 Here are some fact about the stella Liebeck VS McDonalds

May it please the court: We know quite well that not all of the cases we present will turn out to be frivolous abuse of the American Justice System. Many of these cases indeed involve real issues, real injuries, and deserve real compensation. And some don't. That's why we stress that you should read the cases before you judge.


 
How about, for instance, Stella herself? Much of the coverage about Stella Liebeck has been grossly unfair. When you have a more complete summary of the facts, you might change your mind about her. Or maybe not -- that's up to you. Did you know the following aspects of the Stella vs. McDonald's case?

Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off her scalding McDonald's coffee. Her grandson was driving the car, and he had pulled over to stop so she could add cream and sugar to the cup.
Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs.
McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent.
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, usually slightly but sometimes seriously, resulting in some number of other claims and lawsuits.
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature, admitted that it did not warn customers of this risk, could offer no explanation as to why it did not, and testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat even though it admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it is too hot.
While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded.
But...

The resulting $640,000 isn't the end either. Liebeck and McDonald's entered into secret settlement negotiations rather than go to appeal. The amount of the settlement is not known -- it's secret!
The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?
Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?
And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

[Pat Pixley]

And here is one more for the books

  Imagine that someone has LOST YOUR PANTS.

  That's the horrific, unending nightmare that Roy L. Pearson Jr., 57,
suffered for two and a half years. When his hard work as a longtime legal
aid lawyer in Washington, DC paid off with a probationary two-year
appointment as an Administrative Law Judge in 2005, he brought all five
of his suits to Custom Dry Cleaners in for alterations. But when he
returned to pick them up, one pair of pants was missing.

  MISSING!!

  To add insult to injury, when Pearson returned later, the proprietors
-- Jin and Soo Chung -- tried, he claims, to pass off a cheaper pair of
pants as his. He demanded $1,150 for a replacement suit; Pearson wants to
look his best, so he is very particular about his suits despite a limited
budget, and always buys the same style of suit from Hickey Freeman. The
Chungs did not respond.

  Luckily, Washington, D.C., has the Consumer Protection Procedures Act
(CPPA), a law designed to protect consumers from being cheated by local
businesses' broken promises. This law goes beyond simply reporting
someone to the Better Business Bureau, and grants a private right of
action to sue for damages to be made whole again. After all, Custom Dry
Cleaners brazenly displays signs claiming "Same Day Service" and
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" in their store, despite Pearson's catastrophic
experience to the contrary. So he decided to avail himself of these
rights. He did what any one of us would do: he sued the Chungs -- for
$65,462,500. That's right, more than $65 million.

  OK, now it's not so funny anymore.

  Judge Pearson represented himself, casting himself as the victim of an
enormous, malicious fraud, and telling the court with a straight face,
"You will search the D.C. archives in vain for a case of more egregious
or willful conduct." He even began to cry while testifying about the day
he says the Chungs tried to substitute a cheaper pair of pants for his,
then he asked for a break and dabbed away tears as he left the courtroom.

  But if it's sympathy he wants, perhaps Pearson should not have
included the cost of renting a car every weekend for ten years in the
amount of damages he's seeking. Why a car? Oh, that's for driving to
another cleaner, since he doesn't have a car of his own. But that
accounts for only $15,000 of the absurd total; the rest is to compensate
him and the rest of the Chungs' customers for $1,500 per "violation" per
day, times twelve violations, times 1,200 days, times three defendants,
plus the over one thousand hours he claims to have devoted to prosecuting
this case. If it makes you feel better, though, Pearson also indicated
that $51 million of these theoretical damages would be used to help
similarly aggrieved consumers sue other business in the District.

  By the time the case went to trial, the Chungs had offered to settle
it for $3,000 -- then for $4,000 -- and finally for $12,000? Pearson
could have bought ten new suits for that, but he rejected the offer.
Cloaked in the CPPA, he styled himself a "private attorney general"
fighting for the rights of the over 26,000 customers the Chungs had
bamboozled over the years with their "false promises" of "satisfaction
guaranteed".

  "This case shocks me on a daily basis," said the Chungs' attorney,
Chris Manning, before the trial. "Pearson has a lot of time on his hands,
and the Chungs have been abused in a ghastly way. It's going to cost them
tens of thousands to defend this case."

  As to trying to bring in all of the Chungs 26,000 customers into the
case, D.C. Superior Court Judge Neal Kravitz said that "the court has
significant concerns that the plaintiff is acting in bad faith" due to
"the breathtaking magnitude of the expansion he seeks." Among the
questions Pearson demanded the Chungs answer: "Please identify by name,
full address and telephone number, all cleaners known to you on May 1,
2005 in the District of Columbia, the United States and the world that
advertise 'SATISFACTION GUARANTEED.'" Got that? All the dry cleaners in
the world. Since they didn't have personal knowledge of any, the Chungs
were able to answer "None." before they went on to answer the rest of the
interrogatories....

  The trial ended as you might expect (or at least hope) it would:
Superior Court Judge Judith Barnoff ruled in favor of the Chungs, even
awarding them court costs on the grounds that Pearson had "engaged in bad
faith and vexatious litigation." But naturally, that wasn't the end of
it: Pearson filed a motion for reconsideration, which claimed that Judge
Barnoff had "committed a fundamental legal error" and failed to address
his claims. He argued that the court had substituted its own
interpretation of "satisfaction guaranteed" rather than accepting his
argument that the signs were unconditional. The court disagreed and
denied the motion.

  The Chungs later withdrew their motion for court costs, attorneys'
fees, and sanctions, as supporters -- including the American Tort Reform
Association, the Institute for Legal Reform of the United States Chamber
of Commerce, and Washington Post newspaper readers -- had raised nearly
$100,000 to help cover their defense. They said they also hoped that
withdrawing the motion would persuade Pearson to stop litigating.

  But it didn't: a day before the deadline, Pearson filed a notice of
appeal in the pants lawsuit -- so the Chungs are not yet completely off
the hook.

  The loss wasn't the only blow to Pearson. In August, the Commission on
Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges was charged with
deciding whether he should receive a full, 10-year term to continue his
work as a judge. Reports from inside indicate that even after Chief
Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler had submitted a letter
recommending Pearson's reappointment, Pearson sent a number of e-mails
within the ALJ staff calling Butler "evil" and "mean-spirited." Butler
changed his recommendation. Based on that, and on questions about
Pearson's judicial temperament and ethics arising from the lawsuit, the
commission came back with a unanimous decision not to recommend his
reappointment. After two months of foot dragging (it's unclear whether by
Pearson or by the Commission -- but we can guess), this week the
Commission hand-delivered a letter ordering Pearson to clean out his
office and get out within 90 minutes. He was paid about $100,000 year as
a judge.

  The Chungs sold the Custom Dry Cleaners shop in question in September,
citing emotional strain and a loss of revenue. They still own one other
dry cleaning shop, and have said they will be focusing on that one for
the future. The infamous pants, meanwhile, have hung in their attorney's
closet for well over a year -- turned over to him because Pearson
wouldn't accept them. "We believe the pants are his," Manning said. "The
tag matches his receipt."

[Sodaman101]

Its a good thing I don't live next to any of this Butt-H*%es. If I did I would make sure that their verdict had not been overturned and then go to their house and trip on their porch and sue them for the exact amount of their verdict and donate it to charity. And perhaps light a bag of poo on their porch too and get a 1st degree burn by " accident" and then sue them for their own money( they had before their verdict) as well. ( Insert salty language and generalizations about idealogical loons) here. 

[cormy]

- that coffee was way beyond health department  acceptable levels of temperture.

We here at the Health Department (NJ) have no temperature requirements for coffee. Its not considered a "potentially hazardous food".