Jury Awards Disney Tourist $668,000 over Coffee Spill

[safetymom]

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/2003_Sep_11/k.ORD.1063295180.html


Orange County, Fla., Jury Awards Disney Tourist $668,000 over Coffee Spill By Henry Pierson Curtis, The Orlando Sentinel, Fla.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Sep. 11--A tourist from South Florida who had a pot of 180-degree coffee spilled into his lap while at a Disney character breakfast has been awarded $668,000 by an Orange County jury, the man's lawyer said Wednesday.

The pot fell off a tray carried at shoulder height by a waitress at the Polynesian Resort's Ohana Feast. The three-day civil trial before Orange Circuit Judge William C. Gridley showed coffee was not supposed to be carried that way, Miami lawyer John Elliott Leighton said.

Andrew Allocco, 33, was visiting Disney two years ago with his wife, Elizabeth, and their 2-year-old daughter when the incident took place. Testimony showed Allocco suffered extensive blistering as well as pigmentation changes to his genitals and groin from the upended 28-ounce pot of coffee on Oct. 7, 2001.

The award last week included $50,000 for future medical care and $100,000 to Allocco's wife for "loss of consortium."

"Disney claimed my client had been planning the lawsuit from the moment the incident happened," Leighton said. "He wanted a jury to decide if he was exaggerating."

Orlando lawyer Kurt M. Spengler, who represented Disney, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Allocco, a former police officer, holds Federal Aviation Administration fixed-wing and helicopter licenses but has been unable to fly since the accident. A prescribed drug he takes for nerve pain is prohibited for pilots.

The country's best-known lawsuit over spilled coffee resulted in a $2.9 million award against McDonald's restaurants in 1994. The award to an Albuquerque, N.M., woman was reduced on appeal to $480,000 and then settled out of court.

 

[KevinFSU]

Everyone is entitled to their day in court and to have a jury decide the amount of damages. While it sounds excessive, keep in mind the jury was probably able to see what the actual results of this incident were (pictures from the time of incident and current photos). There could have been some fairly significant scarring. With $100,000 going for the consortium claim, there was undoubtedly a claim for sexual dysfunction given the area of the burn. Lucky the burn wasn't to a normally visible area of the body, or you'd be talking over a million (again, assuming there was some significant scarring that called for the jury to award over $600,000 in the first place).

This was clearly a case of negligence without any real comparative negligence to be found on the plaintiff. Defense will file a Motion for Remittitur (in addition to numerous other post-trial motions) and seek to have the award reduced. However, judges are unlikely to do so as long as the award is not outrageous. Since its in the ballpark of what the McDonald's case was reduced to, I wouldn't think the judge would reduce this verdict.

 

[MikeWazowski]

That is really unbelievable incident. But, I think I would need more then $668,000 if my genital's and groin had pigmentation changes. That's really to bad that happened. I think I will have to cross Ohana's off my upcoming restaurant list (LOL)

 

[sarivers]

It seems like sort of a journalistic cheap shot for this reporter to mention the McDonald's case since its not even remotely similar to this Disney case.

Its one thing to burn YOURSELF because your cup of coffee is wedged between your thighs while you're driving, its another thing entirely to be sitting in a restaurant and have an employee drop/spill a whole pot of coffee on your lap.

To me, it seems like the Disney guy would have been entitled to a lot more than the McDonald's lady.

 

[lwestwise]

I would have thought so as well, especially since he was unable to pilot, while on the meds. Just think of the monetary loss if that had been his means of income.

 

[Uncleromulus]

What interests me most is the "shoulder height" carry and spill. Meaning a waist high carry and spill. or a spill during the course of pouring are different?
Servers out there--what's the significance? I have often observed the shoulder carry of trays, and that seems necessary especially when the trays are full and heavy. Are beverages normally off limits for that large a tray?? Usually such a tray is placed on one of those portable things, away from the table--?

 

[mrsltg]

What interests me most is the "shoulder height" carry and spill.

I don't think that you are supposed to put anything hot (ie, pot of coffee) on a tray. Coffee pots are generally carried by the server to the table. It's way to dangerous to carry something like that on your shoulder; not just for the patrons, but if the tray tips the other way, the server will have 180 degree coffee running down his or her neck, back, and chest - OWWW!

Thank heaven this coffee was spilled on a grown man as opposed to an infant - the whole story could have been a lot more tragic. I feel bad for this guy and really don't feel that this award was out of line (and I'm a BIG fan of tort reform and limitations).

I hope that he and his wife are able to, e-hem, find some "happiness" again - YIKES!

Erin

 

[CatOne]

I waitressed for years, and recently returned, so I can finish school. You can NEVER carry a coffee pot unless your hand is on the handle at ALL times. In other words, IF you risk putting it on a tray, and that is a bad idea, you must still have one hand on the handle at all times. At least in EVERY restaurant I have ever worked in, including a Shoney's when I was VERY young, that was and is the rule. Just to dangerous. Children darting away from parents, crowds and just the simple act of a slight tilt of your tray and boom, $668,000 later.... So sorry this happened.


Catone

 

[phamton]

Originally posted by sarivers
To me, it seems like the Disney guy would have been entitled to a lot more than the McDonald's lady.

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again. Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. After all, the plaintiff was a sympathetic figure - an articulate, 81-year-old former department store clerk who said under oath that she had never filed suit before. In fact, she said, she never would have filed this one if McDonald's hadn't dismissed her requests for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.

The six men and six women decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which they reduced to $160,000 after determining that 20% of the fault belonged with Mrs. Liebeck for spilling the coffee. The jury then found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages. Mr. Morgan had suggested penalizing McDonald's the equivalent of one to two days of companywide coffee sales, which he estimated at $1.35 million a day. During the four-hour deliberation, a few jurors unsuccessfully argued for as much as $9.6 million in punitive damages. But in the end, the jury settled on $2.7 million.

McDonald's asked the judge for a new trial. Judge Scott asked both sides to meet with a mediator to discuss settling the case before he ruled on McDonald's request.


POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award.



Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

 

[sha_lyn]

Off topic but.....

I really don't care (in reguards to fault) how many days she spent i nthe hospital, how old she is,or how severe her burns were. She was the one who had complete control over the cup of coffee. IMHO she was 100% responsible for her burns. YOU SHOULD NEVER PUT A CUP OF HOT COFFEE IN A PAPER CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS ... The well shes' older, she wasn't driving, MCD's can afford it etc does not make a bit of difference to me as to who was responsible for her spill coffee in her lap..... Sorry but if it was anyone fault other thans hers, it was the fault of her friend who was driving... But of course that friend didn't have deep pockets like McD's does.

 

[phamton]

Originally posted by sha_lyn
She was the one who had complete control over the cup of coffee. IMHO she was 100% responsible for her burns. YOU SHOULD NEVER PUT A CUP OF HOT COFFEE IN A PAPER CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS ...

I agree with you. I think she bears the responsibility of spilling the coffee. I just posted the article because of the misconception that she got millions from McDonalds. I think if they would have paid the $800 it would have never gone to trial. But one fact is certain, McDonald's coffee was and still is 20º hotter than most brewed coffee and will give 3rd degree burns in seconds. I wonder if the coffee spilt on the man at WDW was that hot.

 

[sha_lyn]

But one fact is certain, McDonald's coffee was and still is 20º hotter than most brewed coffee and will give 3rd degree burns in seconds.

I doubt seriously it was that hot when it spilt. That is the "brewing tep". The coffee had been poured into a cup (which would have caused cooling) and it had (if I remember correctly) been poured for about 5-10 min before the accident. Think about her age and the fact she was in a car, most likely with a seat belt. It would have taken much longer than a few seconds for her to get out of the car and pull her pants down to avoid serious burns.
McD not only paid her about 500K in punitive damages (which are suppose to be a punishment) but they aslo paid her medical bills and for pain and suffering. The actually amount paid out is believed to be between 750K and 1 million, but it is undisclosed.