I'm afraid these all fall under the category of "internet myths/urban legends" unless they were accompanied by actual case numbers. Just like our search for our ancestors, the truth is best found in the sources/documentation. Word of mouth just doesn't have a high degree of reliability. ;-) Now for the facts lest anyone think these were real cases ... Origins: This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications -- a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case. The earliest version concluded with a seventh item that has since been snipped away, likely after someone noticed it was the venerable microwaved poodle legend. Its inclusion would have immediately called into question the truthfulness of the other six cases for any number of folks familiar with urban legends. The remaining six were still false, but they weren't as obviously false as the following poodle tale and thus wouldn't have set the alarm bells ringing: In the spring of 2002, a telling of the venerable Cruise Control legend became part of a widely circulated "outrageous lawsuits" list known on the Internet as the "Stella Awards": In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. The Grazinski entry had been added to a compilation of other false entries -- it was just another howler tacked on. Cheers! Rick Stirling, IBSSG, BoPeep2002 From: "Bobby & Sue Bates" <[email protected]> > A legal system gone berserk? > SB > Thought you might enjoy this: > > > The "Stella" awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck is the 81-year old lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds. > This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award for the most frivolous lawsuits in the U.S. The following are previous year's candidates: > > 1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store > were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little b*stard was Ms. Robertson's son. > > 2. June 1998: A 19-year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. > Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps. > > 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able > to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on > vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. > He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. > He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of a half million dollars. > > 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its > owner's fenced-in yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams, who was > shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. > > 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw > it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. > > 6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, > successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom > window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. > > And the winner is: > > Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 > mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the Winnebago left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him > in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. > > "There is nothing like returning to a place that remains > unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered." Nelson Mandella

Just a further bit of enlightenment ... It could be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media. (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case). THE MCDONALD'S SCALDING COFFEE CASE Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, now 81, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused. During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third- degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales. Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

My husband works for lawyers...he is an independent consultant, installing and managing legal computer systems (amazing the software, etc. they use and how different it is). Anyway, they always have this sort of story floating around, with "The Rest of the Story" attached. I DO think we have frivolous lawsuits, such as the one where the guy who broke into someone's house, tried to escape thru the garage only to have the door to the house lock behind him, garage door opener broken, have to survive for 4 days on dog food and Pepsi because the owner of the house was on vacation...he sued the owners for mental distress or some fool thing. PLEASE--it would've served the guy right for starving to death or whatever in there. (Not to mention, he apparently didn't know how to open a garage door manually?) But I also agree that many of these internet stories ("Can you BELIEVE this story?") leave out too many important details. Overall, though, I do get a kick out of the stories for the most part. I do verify lots of things using www.urbanlegends.com just to try to save my electronic pals the hassle of looking at pure garbage. I'm the vigilante who sends this link to recipients of every layer of message that people don't delete, just to let them ALL know they forwarded some untruth. Sue G. IBSSG > It could be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely > do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases > are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. > Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff > prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally .... > During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims > by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved > third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history > documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

Hi Rick, My apologies. I received those from what I had considered a reliable source and thought I would share. My mistake! LOL Eh, well, they made for amusing reading, at least. I hope! Best, SueB