How do so many frivolous lawsuits end up in court, considering there are tons of legitimate ones in line?

But those aren’t all “frivolous” except to the company that has to pay out. The very first one involved a woman getting third degree burns, which is why she won the case even on appeal, and was awarded a very high amount for damages.

For every lawsuit you deem as “legitimate”, the defendant considers it frivolous. That is for the courts to decide.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s wasn’t frivolous, and even the article you linked admits it. Liebeck wanted to settle for $20,000 (to cover medical costs and lost income), but McDonald’s refused. She then sued them for damages. During the trial, her attorneys offered to settle three separate times and were refused each time. According to the jury, two pieces of evidence were the most persuasive in coming to their verdict.

First, McDonald’s was aware of more than 700 previous injuries that had been caused by their coffee (which was between 30 and 40 degrees hotter than their competitors’ coffee). Second, McDonald’s was caught lying about the justification for their coffee’s temperature. They claimed that the coffee needed to be extra hot because their customers drank it over the course of long drives, but Liebeck’s attorneys discovered that McDonald’s own market research said that most consumers drank their coffee right away.

So if Liebeck v. McDonald’s is your best example of a frivolous lawsuit, then I think we have to reject the premise of your question.

In the US, you can sue anyone for any reason. This is the consequence of living in a free society.

What is frivolous to you is not necessarily frivolous to the plaintiff. In fact, it’s arrogant of you to dismiss someone else’s heartfelt issue as frivolous.

You don’t understand the meaning of a frivolous suit. Lawyers can be sanctioned for filing a truly frivolous suit. The McDonald’s suit was far from frivolous.

I remember after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ginned up the frivolity factor, photos of the burns on the woman’s thighs put an end to that. Those photos were truly grim, and in my opinion sank McDonalds for its refusal to cover her medical expenses.

McDonalds got what they deserved. The plantiff’s personal injury lawyer was perfectly reasonable asking for reasonable damages and McDonald’s refused to settle.

The vast majority of lawsuits do not end up in court. (I know this because my cousin is a personal injury lawyer)

Lawyers play the percentages, like a gambler.

I found this as an example of frivolous lawsuits that don’t include big business.

https://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/top-10-frivolous-lawsuits-list-is-frivolous-but-funny/

The first example is perfect….animal rights group sues on behalf of monkey for rights to selfies. Does anyone really believe the monkey cared? Would the monkey’s life be altered in some negative way if he didn’t get the selfies?
I think most of these idiotic lawsuits are because people want something or believe they should be given something without working for it. The truly annoying piece of this is the courts have no real power to throw these out of court for being frivolous.

I always think about the old lady that spilled hot McDonald’s coffee on herself, as an example of the system being broken. Yes. She was burned badly. But my god, how is it McDonald’s fault?

@MrGrimm888 Well, that’s what McDonald’s thought which is why they didn’t settle. It was a very expensive mistake.

Because McDonalds kept their coffee at near boiling which was negligent. She was severely burned.

Note to myself: Flo if you ever spill the hot coffee on yourself make sure you sue yourself.

I should know better that to transport my coffee to the….before it gets cool enough.
Thanks to @MrGrimm888 and @seawulf575 for best posts, for seeing that it’s not the ones who didn’t spill coffe on themselves who are out to lunch.

@All except @MrGrimm888 and @seawulf575,
There is harfdly a difference between suing McDonalds for spilling that*hot coffee oneself, and suing *another restaurant (who didn’t sell the coffee) for spilling that hot coffe on oneself because there is no relationship between who sold the coffee and who spilled it on him/herself, it is that preposterous.

…“I should know better (than) to transport my coffee to the….before it gets cool enough.” (in my previous to last post) is sarcasm, since every day people manage to not burn themselves when they use the stove at home, and doing a gizillion other things.

If you’re using a product for something other than what it’s designed for, you’re at fault if there are negative consequences. Scolding hot coffee wasn’t designed to pour on an old woman’s legs. Had she stabbed herself in the eye with the straw, would McDonald’s be liable for that too?

@flo No one was suing other restaurants because they weren’t selling coffee hot enough to give them third-degree burns in 2 – 7 seconds.

@MrGrimm888 Knowingly or not, you are just parroting two decades worth of corporate spin. Liebeck didn’t pour it on her own legs. It spilled on her while she was taking off the lid (something that McDonald’s own market research told them was a common behavior among their customers). While it probably won’t answer every question or objection you might have, there’s a documentary that focuses on the case if you’re interested.

^Correct. I did watch that documentary. That’s exactly what I based my opinion on.

COFFEE IS SCOLDING HOT. Be careful with it. Life cannot exist if idiots get millions for being idiots. If someone hands you a cup of something that could harm you, be careful. Nobody threw it on her. I thought it was one of the biggest bullshit lawsuits I’ve ever seen…

@JeSuisRickSpringfield “Had she stabbed herself in the eye with the straw, would McDonald’s be liable for that too?” @MrGrimm888‘s post. Appaently you’d say yes.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield,
...It’s that cup ofcoffe I was referring to, ( I emphasised the word “that”). differe

@MrGrimm888 “COFFEE IS SCOLDING HOT. ”

Coffee is often scalding hot, but scalds are typically first- or second-degree burns. One of the elements of the case was that McDonald’s coffee was between 30 and 40 degrees hotter than their competitors’ coffee—enough to cause third-degree burns. Another was that they knew it was causing severe injuries (again, unlike their competitors’ coffee) and that their own market research told them there was no reason to serve their coffee so hot. Negligence is an important part of the law (and it cuts both ways—the fact that Liebeck spilled her coffee is why the jury found her partially responsible for her injuries).

@flo “Apparently you’d say yes.”

Don’t put words in my mouth. I wouldn’t say yes. I also think that the comparison is fatuous.

“It’s that cup of coffee I was referring to (I emphasized the word “that”).”

Unfortunately, that wasn’t clear because it makes absolutely no sense to say that a company that didn’t sell a product is just as responsible for harms that said product causes as the company that did sell it. If someone sells you gum secretly laced with cyanide, is it your fault for chewing it?

^Say what you want. It was a BS lawsuit….

What a stunning rebuttal.

I thought it was a BS lawsuit too, until I heard the other side of it. She had to have skin graft surgery, among other things.

Irrelevant. She spilled it. It sucks, but it was her fault.

@MrGrimm888 You realize that she was penalized for contributory negligence, right? A jury heard the case and decided that it was partially her fault for spilling the coffee, and partially the fault of McDonald’s for serving dangerously hot coffee. It’s not like the jury said she had no part in what happened to her. It’s the same way that someone who gets hit by a drunk driver while not wearing their seatbelt can still sue the person who hit them (but will receive less in damages).

Something to keep in mind is that the coffee could have injured Liebeck even if there had been no spill, whereas the spill could have been harmless if the coffee hadn’t been so abnormally hot. Moreover, McDonald’s knew that their coffee was causing injuries and had made the decision to settle lawsuits instead of changing their practices. It’s the same reason that tobacco companies were hit with so many lawsuits when their internal research was exposed to public scrutiny.

It’s ALL her fault. She shouldn’t have gotten a penny…

Maybe it goes to slow courts or maybe some judges like to be entertained. I found them amusing.

When he was 14 my son was arrested for stealing fake dog poop out of someone’s truck….the judge and aids had a hard time with that one in court.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield Your link in response to @MrGrimm888
(Appeal to the stone= Argumentum ad lapidem) goes for your “I wouldn’t say yes. I also think that the comparison is fatuous.” You didn’t explain.

2) “Unfortunately, that wasn’t clear because it makes absolutely no sense to say that a company that didn’t sell a product is just as responsible for harms that said product causes as the company that did sell it.”
My post says (in different words) that it makes just as much sense (meaning zero sense) to sue the one who sold the coffee as suing the one who didn’t sell it.” The word “preposterous” shows it.

3)Re. _”)If someone sells you gum secretly laced with cyanide, is it your fault for chewing it?“__
So, the fact that hot coffee is _varying degrees of too hot _ (no matter who made it and who handed it to an adult, and not a toddler or so) is supposed to be a secret?

4)The fact that there’s that many people who can’t handle hot coffee (Mcdonalds had many complaints already) means just that, it doesn’t mean it legitimizes a lawsuit.

5) It not like _” It’s the same way that someone who gets hit by a drunk driver while not wearing their seatbelt because the drunk driver is not just doing what he/she is supposed to do* like Mcdonalds was, selling hot coffee, not lukewarm or cold coffee.

6) @MrGrimm888 reponded to you with the straws example.

….To continue with:
6) The straws example makes it as clear as a bell. There could have been customers who complained “Mcdonlads straws are too hard for the eyes, they should be as harmless as clean water (etc.,) to the eyes” No difference.

…7) There is no just perfect for everyone level of hot beverage. What is hot enough/too hot to some is not hot enough to others. For some people even if it just got poured out of a still brewing coffee machine, it’s still not hot enough.
You can wait to let hot coffee get cool down, you can’t do anyting about it if it’s too cold.

For something to give you THIRD DEGREE BURNS it is too hot.

“I have no brain, that’s why I need to sue.”

Everyone knows coffee is really hot.

Let’s say that it was red wine, and at a restaurant. A lady is wearing an expensive white dress. She spills the wine on her dress, and now the dress is ruined. Is the restaurant now responsible for the wine being red?

The wine wouldn’t physically harm her. The coffee was close to a boiling point and caused 3rd degree burns. Huge difference between the two. Hell, I’ve spilled coffee on me and it was hot. But it didn’t cause this kind of damage. Only mild 1st degree. The customers didn’t know how hot the coffee was, but McDonald’s did.
3rd degree burns

Love ya Dutch. I won’t waste your time debating this anymore. We are at an impasse.