Gordon Graham here – and thanks for taking the time to visit my little corner of the Credit Union website – and I hope that all is going well for you and your family as we approach the summer months. I was prepping this piece over the Memorial Day weekend – and holidays at home are always nice as I have plenty of time to get caught up on all the reading.
Not to jump way ahead in life – but if I ever retire, it would be nice to be able to spend the day reading as there is so much great stuff out there to digest. Most of the reading I do today involves job related stuff – and as a lawyer, I have to read the Daily Journal – the legal paper that I have been perusing now for thirty years or so.
And as I was reading the “Daily Appellate Report” (one of many from last week as it comes out daily – which probably is linked to the name of the document) here is a case that caught my eye – and I like the logic of the court which probably means it will be overturned by someone with opposing views on these issues, but here is the case summary.
“Uninsured motorist whose coffee spilled on her in Jack in the Box drive-thru is barred from seeking non-economic damages”
Anyone who has been alive for any period of time will remember the tale of the woman in New Mexico who got burned “McScalded” with the hot coffee. For those of you who have not heard of this one, here is a summary.
So we have this 79-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck (and remember the name Stella because that was the derivation of the website www.stellaawards.com) of Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee in February 1992. Ms. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-thru window of a local McDonalds.
After getting her coffee, Junior pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. 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. I have no photos to share with you regarding this.
She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused so off to court they went and the jury gave her 200K in compensatory damages and $2.7 Million in punitive damages against McDonald’s – because they knew the coffee they were serving was too hot.
And if you have been to any of my programs over the last few decades – one of the tenets of Risk Management that I preach is “there are no new ways to get in trouble” and apparently the plaintiff in the Jack-In-The-Box case never heard of Ms Stella Liebeck – or of the Stella Awards site that talks about ridiculous lawsuits and verdicts around America and is named after the lovely Ms. Liebeck – and if she was 79 in 1992 then she would be like 18 years older today – and I will have to check on this, but she has probably passed away leaving her heirs with a couple of million to spend.
But back to the Jack case, in a nutshell, one Tekla Chude got burned by hot coffee at the local Jack operation. Unlike Stella, Tekla was driving her rig through the drive-thru and got her coffee from the JIB employee and brought it inside her car and dropped the cup into here lap and the coffee pooled on the seat below her. She could not open the door to unbuckle her seatbelt because her car was too close to the wall and as a result she spent two to three minutes (Oh, yeah – that is believable – and let’s start counting out 180 seconds – one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi – you get my drift here) – trying to get her bottom off the seat and out of the pooled coffee and go some severe injuries on her buttocks (again I have no pictures) which prevented her from working, sitting or driving and she missed two weeks of school and received an incomplete grade and missed an opportunity for an internship to Harvard Medical school – and I made that up, but the Plaintiff lawyer was doing his/her best to maximize damages but the court had a little surprise for the lawyer and the lovely Ms Chude.
“So, show us your insurance policy for your car” – said the court – and Ms Chude did not (shock of all shocks) have any liability insurance at the time of the incident and thus did not have financial responsibility and apparently there is this section in the Civil Code in California – 3333.4 Section in the CCC that came out of Proposition 213 which bars uninsured motorists and convicted drunk drivers from recovering non-economic damages – and my guess is that was the last thing that Ms Chude and her lawyer thought of – and I like the outcome of that case. No insurance – You don’t get Jack from Jack.
Which brings me to the focus of this brief piece – and you have heard this one before. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” I remind you of this because over this long weekend I had the opportunity to drive with several different people (none of them family members) who apparently were unaware of a relatively new law – CVC 21809.
This law requires that drivers “move over” when they are approaching certain vehicles which are on the right shoulder – like emergency vehicles, CalTrans vehicles and the like. I have always made it a practice to “move over” (and slow down a bit) when passing any vehicle on the right shoulder – and in an effort to enhance the safety of the people working adjacent to the freeway (and any other people similarly situated).
So with this in mind – make sure your family is aware of this law (mine is) and your co-workers might need to be reminded of this requirement. It was put into place to protect people like you while you are on duty – but simultaneously it applies to all of us as vehicle operators also. Driving increases over the summer months – and this would be the ideal time to share this “new law” with the people you contact.
While you are doing this – you also might want to remind them about the dangers of hot drinks in cars – and particularly about the transfer process of the hot drink from the person at the window in the restaurant to the recipient (the driver) of the car in the drive-thru lane. There are all sorts of “laws of physics” at play here and who knows, your efforts might prevent a tragedy. And that is what “risk management” is all about.
Take care and stay safe – and please enjoy your summer.
Gordon Graham
Co-President, Lexipol
