6 Famous 'Frivolous Lawsuit' Stories That Are Total B.S. | Cracked.com

6 Famous Frivolous Lawsuit Stories That Are Total B.S. | Cracked.com

A rare misfire for Cracked. Not only is the article not funny, but it is quite incorrect in many of its interpretations. Turns out many (not all) of the original cases WERE B.S, and so is this article. For example it tries to justify the case of the woman who sued McDonald's because she spilled coffee on her lap. How does it do so? By saying that the jury awarded her money!

First of all, that's pretty much exactly like saying that you are a fool for thinking O.J. was guilty, because a jury found otherwise.

But more important, the entire point of the original "frivolous lawsuit story" is to show how stupid the jury was, not to show how greedy Stella and her lawyer were. We automatically assume that people and lawyers will go for a fast buck if they see the opportunity. There's no news story there. Frivolous, greed-driven B.S. lawsuits are filed every day, probably by the thousands, and most of them get weeded out. But when one gets to a jury and that jury actually buys in to the B.S., then it becomes a story. Given that the jury's stupidity, not Stella's greed, is the story in the first place, the Cracked article actually confirms it rather than refuting it.

Here are the key facts:

1. McDonald's sells something like two billion cups of coffee per year, and has continued to serve it at exactly the same temperature after Stella's lawsuit. No governmental body or safety watchdog has suggested that they change, or that they are endangering the public safety of two billion people every year, because they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

2. The standard for punitive damages in New Mexico, where the suit was tried, is "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct." The National Coffee Association recommends that coffee be brewed between 195 and 205 degrees. McDonald's brews it between 180 and 190. Does that sound like it meets the legal standard of reckless conduct? Of course not. But jurors can be morons, and in this case, as in O.J.'s, they were.