"The McDonald's case

"Jeff Cooper returns unprompted to the bete noire of those who decry "out of control jury verdicts" -- the verdict for the plaintiff in the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's.   He observes: "There are some examples of outrageous jury decisions out there. This is not one."

"I agree.  I am, I suppose, one of the few defense attorneys who is willing to defend the jury's decision in that case -- against overwhelming opinion to the contrary, it often seems.  In addition to the several factors that Cooper recounts, we should recall that:

• There was some suggestion that McDonald's had consciously developed the policy of overheating its coffee as a strategy aimed at making sure that the patrons would have to sip it slowly and therefore would not finish the cup and return to the counter to ask for a refill before finishing their breakfasts.  (This may well have been someone's gloss on the facts, however.)
• The punitive damages award of $2.7 million (later substantially reduced by the trial judge) was calculated by the jury based on the evidence that disclosed that that figure represented one day's coffee sales.  In other words, there was a rational basis for the calculation, and it was intended to sting but not cripple the defendant.  The jury, in making this calculation, did precisely what we expect it to do in coming to a figure on punitive damages."

6:59:18 AM    


comment []