Chungs (dry cleaners sued for $54M) have set up a Legal Defense Fund

http://www.customcleanersdefensefund.com/

I feel badly for these people, working hard, just trying to make a living... and some asshole drags them through years of legal hell because he misses his pants? This case is even worse than the idiot who sued McDonald's for $10 million because she placed hot coffee in her lap and... it spilled! (eyes rolling) At least McDonald's corporation has deep pockets for such frivilous nonsense. Anyway, I'm glad to see the Chungs are getting some financial assistance. I just gave them a small donation.



Jin Nam and Soo Chung thank you very much for your interest in their case. They are deeply touched by your kindness and support.

In response to the numerous calls and e-mails from people offering assistance, this fund has been created to help with their defense costs.

They don't deserve to go under because of this.

He needs to be removed from the bench after this whole mess is over, because by bringing this case, I think he's demonstrated a profound lack of judgment. The Chungs should sue him for court costs and legal expenses and even a bit of pain and suffering, too, if they prevail.

they had to stop proceedings while he pulled himself together. WTF?

The jerk could end up having to pay the freight for these people. I hope that's how it ends up. This is just a waste of the court's time.

Thanks.

It was because McDonalds kept the coffee far too hot, so hot that the woman recieved second degree burns.

McDonalds had been warned of the problem before and did nothing, the reason being that they wished to keep the coffee as long as possible without emptying the urn and making a fresh batch in order to save money.

I have recieved second degree burns from hot liquid over a goodly portion of my face and arms, I can speak from experience that it is excruciatingly painful.

The lawsuit over the pants is idiotic and should be and will be thrown out of court.

and certainly did not mean to mock your situation.

The coffee was too hot because they knew customers couldn't taste stale coffee if it was very hot. McDonald's had a internal memo that outlined its profit on selling too hot coffee verses paying out against any lawsuits for hot coffee burns. They would make more money selling hot, stale coffee and paying out a few suits. It was a business decision, and an immoral one.

McFacts about the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)

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.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

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, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. 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.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

I get so tired of seeing McDonald's coffee case held up as an example of a "frivolous" lawsuit.

THE CASE HAD MERIT!

because the next case to come up was an very elderly women who died after spilling McD's coffee all over herself which resulted in terrible burns and skin grafts. Mcd's wanted to turn public opinion to their side before that case came up so they created this mass PR campaign which very much distorted the truth.

Notable in my life, because I was younger then, and it was my first indication that the MSM lies to you, all the time in fact.

McD had been serving the coffee at too high a temp for some time prior to her injury. In fact they had received numerous warnings about it. When someone was finally severely injured because of it they had no one to blame but themselves.