Letters: Why juries reward large verdicts in corporate negligence cases

Chicago Tribune

03-06-2025

'Nuclear verdicts' have become a sensationalized headline for defense lawyers, corporations and insurance companies that are trying to deprive innocent injured victims of full compensation.
Robert Tyson's op-ed ('Sequel to 1994 McDonald's hot coffee case is now $47M more expensive,' May 27) speaks of 'research and data' on such verdicts, which he doesn't list. His misstatement of facts leads readers to misconceptions of the jury process itself.
Tyson's comments on the 1994 McDonald's hot coffee verdict are simply wrong. The elderly plaintiff suffered burns requiring skin grafts. She received $160,000 in compensatory damages for her injuries. Punitive damages of nearly $3 million were reduced to $480,000 by the trial judge. At the time, McDonald's reportedly grossed $1.3 million daily in coffee sales alone. The jury wanted to send a message to the corporation when documents showed more than 700 previous claims by people burned by McDonald's coffee. Coffee served at home is about 135 degrees. McDonald's coffee is between 180 and 190 degrees.
The $50 million verdict against Starbucks of which Tyson speaks dealt with the negligence of an employee handing a customer scalding tea that was improperly secured in its take-out container; it landed in his lap and groin. He suffered third-degree burns and permanent injuries. It was reported that Starbucks countered with a pretrial $30 million offer to settle.
The substantial nature of the verdict can be seen as the jury's acknowledgment of the profound impact burn injuries have on an individual's life because it was they who heard all of the evidence and came to a fair decision.
The real issue here is one of accountability. Large corporations such as Starbucks have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their products. Decisions by juries serve as a deterrent for corporations not to cut safety protocols. Rather than dismissing large verdicts as 'nuclear,' they should be embraced as reflections on corporate responsibility. Tyson's solution is to further alienate juries from the judicial process, despite the Seventh Amendment.
Rather than limiting the role of juries, reforms should aim to better support and prepare them. This could include more effective jury instructions, enhanced presentation of technical evidence and improved use of experts. These reforms acknowledge the importance of jury involvement.
The courtroom is not just a place for legal battles; it is a space where societal values are tested and reinforced by juries, the cornerstone of democracy.Those trying to tip the scales of justice against individuals in favor of wealthy and powerful businesses have long cited — and mischaracterized — the McDonald's hot coffee case to support their push to close courthouse doors to individuals hurt due to no fault of their own.
Robert Tyson continues that practice in his op-ed by failing to share that the $2.9 million verdict awarded to a woman who suffered horrific injuries after scalding hot coffee spilled on her lap, was later reduced to $640,000.
The myth of the McDonald's case suggests the restaurant giant was victimized by an unscrupulous plaintiff. But the truth is that the case proves the system works: The trial judge reduced the damages awarded by the jury, and the parties later settled for a confidential amount.
Moreover, the jury learned that some 700 other people — including children — had reported burns by McDonald's dangerously hot coffee. That case began as a response to one person's injury but ended up highlighting a broader issue of how a company acted in a way that put numerous customers in danger. That is the proper function of our civil justice system.
When businesses are careless and people get hurt, those businesses should be held accountable. It's their responsibility to ensure their products are handled safely. And if juries award large verdicts, it's because they hear evidence of atrocious misconduct or vast human injury.
How do you get the attention of giant corporations, worth billions of dollars, and force them to stop making people sick, injuring or killing them? You target their bottom line. Sadly, money is often the only language they speak.
Tyson also references a recent $50 million verdict against Starbucks in the case of a delivery driver severely burned by a mishandled tray of hot beverages. As with the McDonald's case, there is a judicial mechanism to review the jury's verdict and determine if it's appropriate. Indeed, as is its right, Starbucks is appealing that verdict.
The term 'nuclear verdict,' used disparagingly by Tyson, is dramatic. It's intentionally over-the-top rhetoric employed by corporations and the insurance industry to mislead the public and undermine support for a legal system that protects the little guy's ability to seek justice and hold corporations accountable for harmful behavior.Amen to the call for improving security on the 'L.' I've been a resident in Chicago for quite a long time and have watched the security on the trains deteriorate sharply from the 1980s.
I've ridden the Blue Line twice in a recent week, midday, and both instances included a rider who came on board yelling at riders, the train or who knows what else.
In those instances, there were riders traveling to and from O'Hare International Airport. This is an absolutely horrible way to represent the city.
I've ridden the Tube in London and the Madrid transit system, and our transit presentation to the world is an absolute embarrassment.On a recent visit to Chicago to do research for a family memoir on my father, I was the beneficiary of excellent, knowledgeable and pleasant service at the Chicago Board of Education, Harold Washington Library Center, Chicago History Museum and Newberry Library.
Somebody in Chicago is doing something right.Spring means graduation for eighth grade, high school and college graduates across America. Commencement ceremonies are important rituals to recognize the hard work and sacrifice that led to this moment. Most of these graduates will walk across the stage to receive their diploma wearing a cap and gown — a cheaply made, polyester garment that will be tossed in the trash soon after the ceremony is over. Graduates may save the cap and its accompanying tassel as souvenirs, mementos of their accomplishment, but the gowns, 1,600 of them from my son's college graduation alone, will go to the landfill.
The waste is staggering, both in terms of the amount of landfill space they will consume but also the energy it took to create, package and ship the gowns in the first place — energy expended for a single-use item that is worn for maybe half a day.
I'm not anti-gown. They bring solemnity, simple elegance and equality to the occasion, and I prefer them to the dresses and suits once required by our local high school. The convenience and low cost of the throw-away gowns is tempting, and collecting, laundering and storing used gowns are not tasks without their own financial costs and carbon footprint.
I hazard to guess, however, that because of the convenience and affordability of cheap, throw-away gowns, not many institutions have done a proper review of the real costs and benefits of doing graduation garb this way versus alternatives.
The world has bigger problems to tackle than this, for sure, but if we don't reconsider this sort of single-cycle consumption (and plenty of other examples of this sort of waste exist), we pile up the waste and suffocate the planet.
I'm certainly open to suggestions to address this issue. I hope our educational institutions are as well.