4 ms·
We're not going to have a rehash of the McDonald's coffee settlement argument here, are we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia
by mcdonje 6mo ago
We're not going to have a rehash of the McDonald's coffee settlement argument here, are we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
- Schiendelman 6mo agoShe deserved way more than that for the way they tried to smear her afterward!
- ziml77 6mo agoSeriously, the reporting on that was so terribly biased that many people still think it was a frivolous lawsuit.
- watwut 6mo agoThe result was wrong. And yes, I read the contra arguments put on and they were not convincing.
- Schiendelman 6mo agoYour entire opinion is based on an expensive propaganda campaign. Is that who you want to be?
- dvlsg 6mo agoIt's honestly kind of chilling just how effective smear campaigns can be. I don't think there's any reasonable person who could read the full medical description of the injuries sustained and think "yeah 2.7 mill was too much".
- some_random 6mo agoStella Liebeck was awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages, that seems like a much more reasonable number than 1.4 billion.
- wredcoll 6mo agoIt was considerably less on appeal and the mcdonalds lawyers didn't anatagonize the court every chance they got and it was literally 30 years ago and there was only one victim. Just with inflation (6.4m) and number of victims (22?) you get a much larger number real quick.
- some_random 6mo ago6.4m * 22 = 140.8m, an entire order of magnitude less.
- wredcoll 6mo agoSure, and the mcdonalds case was a famously low penalty amount.