Listening to personal injury clients discuss and distinquish the McDonald’s verdict case from their own is like drinking a cup of sulphuric acid while watching Rain Man.

Again in very short order, the McDonald’s Verdict was brought into the coversation by two of my clients. Each of these people has a serious injury case, a personal injury case, where they believe their case is somehow much different than the issues in the McDonald’s case. There is no difference, but people are very good at convincing themselves a jury will somehow see their case in a different light. They won’t. At least not until people begin to understand the reason why McDonald’s got sued, why the verdict was correct and why reducing the verdict was clearly wrong. The McDonald's case was not frivolous; if it was then so is yours.

THE DELUSION: “I’m the Mother Theresa of personal injury; while Mrs. Liebeck is the Devil incarnate.”

Ronald didn’t get sued just because the coffee was hot; RM got sued because of the extremely high temperature of the food being served. Yeah, really there is a difference you morons. The coffee wasn't just hot, it was so hot that it could literally melt a person’s skin. When handled, and the top was either removed or came off, the contents weren’t just inconvenient; they were highly dangerous to any human being with a brain. Hot is hot, but when the contents are so hot that it can cause your skin to literally melt, then, (your morons) the contents aren’t even edible. Do you know what the word edible means and that food served is supposed to be edible? Get it, edible means you can eat it and isn't food you pay for supposed to be edible? Just like drinking acid, coffee at the temperature it was being served at on that day, can't be drank. It's inedibable! What do I have to do pour you a cup of acid to make you understand this concept? Are you really this inanely moronic? Why in Heaven’s name would a restaurant sell food that isn’t edible? Does that make sense to anyone who’s ever eaten out? How is serving a liquid drink that isn’t edible any different than serving a cup of acid?

Don't do what an idiot would do!

Give me a break! I'm so sick and tired of morons discussing this case that jumping off a bridge seems a whole lot more interesting.

The one client has a rather serious injury to his spine requiring a neurosurgeon to go in and surgically correct it; the other case I’m going to choose not to discuss because it’s too recent. In each case the client sees what they are doing as somehow different than what Mrs. Lybeck did in suing McDonald’s. It isn’t, each was injured by the negligent acts or another party. In each case their serious nature of the client’s injuries was easily foreseeable and preventable by the party that eventually gets sued. Yet each client condemn’s Mrs. Lybeck while raising themselves to the level of Sainthood. Get a clue folks you are Mrs. Lybeck; your case is a McPI case.

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Anyone wanting to engage in less litigation seems to like mischaracterizing this case. It seems anyone selling products or services that kill people or that cause disease to a huge number of people who use the product or service, are trying to make this case seem outlandish to anyone that will listen. But the case makes complete sense and most people can’t start to understand why. You don't understand until it’s you on the receiving end of the hysteria that followed the verdict; and some you can't even then, comprehend the problem.

As my mother Dolly would say, "Are they stupid?"

Apparentlythey are Mom. I, as  a lawyer, have no interest in trying to fool people, including juries, by saying in my opening statement the McDonld’s verdict was wrong. It was right; and in this country, two wrongs still don’t make a right. So forget fantasy land and once upon a time, because your case is cut from the same cloth as was the McDonald’s suit. All of you have a McCase; my only question for you is, can I Supersize your brain?

Once Upon A Time

For Stefania, my very own fairy tale happy ever after.

Once upon a time I believed all kinds of things.

I believed in horses with horns

and even in horses with wings!

I thought at the bottom of the garden

fairies would cavort and play.

I thought that under every bridge there lived a troll

and, when on my own, I stayed well away.

It never occurred to me then that

a fairy collecting teeth was a curious beast.

The Sandman, Father Christmas, dragons and elves,

these now seem just as implausible at least.

I no longer believe in transmogrifying frogs

or that princes can only exist in threes.

The very idea of Rumplestiltskin just makes me laugh.

I now know better than to believe in any of these.

But there is one thing that I believed in then

that even, no especially, today I still believe is true.

There are some who would say "It is just a fairytale"

but I believe in happy ever after with you.

---

The idiots movie list

---

McDonalds Lawsuit | McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit

 

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 ...

Abnormal Use: The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ

Jan 25, 2011 ... The defective product caused the burns to Ms. Liebeck's body. .... McDonald's declined. Following the jury verdict and the trial court's ...

Abnormal Use: The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ

Jan 25, 2011 ... The defective product caused the burns to Ms. Liebeck's body. .... McDonald's declined. Following the jury verdict and the trial court's ...

The Untold Story - :: Injury Resolutions ::

The verdict generates the misguided belief that there is a "litigation crisis" in ... Mrs. Liebeck was a drive-through customer at an Albuquerque McDonalds. ...

The Untold Story - :: Injury Resolutions ::

The verdict generates the misguided belief that there is a "litigation crisis" in ... Mrs. Liebeck was a drive-through customer at an Albuquerque McDonalds. ...

Phoenix Personal Injury Attorney | McDonald's Hot Coffee Case ...

Dec 22, 2010 ... Mrs. Liebeck wrote to McDonald's asking the company to turn down the ... Post- verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at ...

The Truth About The McDonald's Coffee Case

When the verdict was reported in 1994, talk show hosts like Paul Harvey jumped on ... Ms. Liebeck asked McDonald's to pay her $20000 in medical expenses. ...

The Modern Civil Justice System (from "Class in America")

After she got out of the hospital, Mrs. Liebeck told McDonald's about her ... McDonald's demanded a retrial, claiming that the verdict was improper. ...