Last week, McDonald’s unveiled a new look for Ronald McDonald, the face of its vast fast food franchise. After sporting the same hair, makeup, and clothes for the past 51 years, Ronald has been given a much needed makeover. According to a report from by Yahoo! Finance:

The yellow jumpsuit Ronald’s worn for so long will be replaced with cargo pants and a vest, along with a red-and-white striped rugby-type shirt. That’s going to be the standard uniform. For “special occasions,” he’ll sport a red jacket, bowtie and yellow pants, the company says. At the same time, he’ll also get involved with the corporate office’s social media efforts.

While we here at Abnormal Use are fans of McDonald’s (and write about it often), we must admit that Ronald has always given us the creeps. As clowns go, his looks have always been more “Pennywise” than “Bozo.” Unfortunately, the new Ronald doesn’t look much better. Giving Ronald a bow tie and a rugby shirt can’t mask the fact that he remains a creepy clown. On the positive side, Ronald has decided to ditch one-piece jumpsuit. So, there’s that.

As excited as everyone is about the update, we are more interested in hearing new Ronald’s position on hot coffee. Under the leadership of the former Ronald, McDonald’s held strong in the midst of much coffee litigation, including the infamous Stella Liebeck suit. Much to the delight of millions of customers, Old Ronald followed the basic principle that coffee is meant to be served hot. In this regard, old Ronald emerged as a pillar of the coffee community regardless of his unfortunate appearance. We only hope the new Ronald can display the same strength and fortitude, but fear he may face challenges with the bow tie and Craig Sager-esque jacket. Only time will tell.

It’s not just about the hot coffee, you know. In what seemed like a normal culinary transaction, Webster Lucas ordered a Quarter Pounder Deluxe from his local McDonalds in Pacoima, California. The Quarter Pounder Deluxe (or “Royale with Cheese Deluxe,” for our readers on the metric system) comes with the following according to the McDonalds website: “100% beef layered with melty American cheese, ripe tomato, leaf lettuce, crinkle-cut pickles, crunch red onion, mayo and mustard, on a toasted bakery-style bun.” According to Mr. Lucas, it should also come with more than one napkin. It is plausible that one would need more than one napkin in the process of consuming this beast of a burger. These ingredients, while delicious (in fact, just typing the description of this burger caused my mouth to water), are quite messy. Knowing the messy character of the delicious burger, Mr. Lucas opened his McDonalds bag hoping to find a sufficient number of napkins. It is unclear how many napkins Mr. Lucas expected to find, but what we do know is that the bag contained only one napkin.

As TMZ reports, Mr. Lucas immediately confronted the manager who, according to Mr. Lucas, was unwilling to provide additional napkins. Mr. Lucas then explained to the manager: “I should have went to eat at the Jack-in-the-Box because I didn’t come here to argue over napkins.” Things apparently escalated from there, and according to Mr. Lucas, the manager also made a racist comment during the exchange. When McDonalds corporate offered free burgers (and presumably extra napkins) in an attempt to remedy the napkin debacle, Mr. Lucas was “insulted.” Not only was he insulted, but Mr. Lucas now suffers from “undue mental anguish” from the experience.

It is unclear how many napkins Mr. Lucas needed, or how much those extra napkins would have cost McDonalds, but Mr. Lucas is able to assign a dollar figure to his suffering. Mr. Lucas has sued McDonalds for $1.5 million.

We’ve commented before how difficult it is to find new legal themed comic book covers week after week after week for our Friday Legals posts. Well, today, we decided to be a bit different and post a legally themed album cover. This is big news. So, above, dear readers, you’ll find the Bobby Fuller Four’s I Fought The Law, released way, way back in 1966. According to the Wikipedia, the album was named for the song of the same name, which has a storied history in American popular culture:

“I Fought the Law” is a song written by Sonny Curtis of the Crickets and became popularized by a cover by the Bobby Fuller Four, which went on to become a top-ten hit for the band in 1966 and was also recorded by the Clash in 1979. The Bobby Fuller Four version of this song was ranked No. 175 on the Rolling Stone list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time in 2004, and the same year was named one of the 500 “Songs that Shaped Rock” by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Our favorite version, of course, is the one by The Clash, but we’ve got to give it to BFF for popularizing the song as they did.

In case you were wondering, “Yes, Emoji Death Threats Are Admissible in Court.” By the way, we here at Abnormal Use are decidedly anti-emoji.

Three years ago this week, on January 25, 2011, we published our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ. In it, we attempted to tell the tale of that infamous case using only the original court documents and early 1990’s media coverage. Our original introduction to that piece:

First entering the public consciousness in 1994, the Stella Liebeck trial, known as the McDonald’s hot coffee case, has become such a fixture of litigation lore that many are unaware of the basic facts of the case, or even where and when it was tried. Litigated and reported upon before the rise of the Internet, much of what appears online about the case is the worst sort of unsourced speculation and conjecture. Our friends at Overlawyered have done an excellent job over the years dispelling the various myths about the case, including those that have arisen suggesting that the industry standard was to serve coffee at temperatures lower than that of McDonald’s. In an effort to publish some of the basic facts of the case, we here at Abnormal Use have created the following FAQ file regarding the matter. In so doing, we have relied solely upon the original pleadings and motions in the case and some contemporary news coverage.

So in light of this anniversary, go back and take a look at our first – and only – FAQ.

We would have liked to have observed the Google Glass traffic ticket trial. We suspect there will be similar trials in the future.

Now is the time that we, as consumers of media, are inundated with year end best-of lists. So, just as we have done in years past, we here at Abnormal Use have collected our favorite posts of this past year – our fourth full year of existence (if you can believe it). If you’ve followed us from the very beginning, you know that we’ve posted at least every business day these past four calendar years. That’s a lot! Looking back over our posts this year, it was difficult to choose our favorites. But, dear readers, the ones we enjoyed the most are linked for you below, along with their author and publication date. Fill yourself with nostalgia, just as we have, and revisit these entries from 2013.

On The Perils of Replying To Blog Comments (Nick Farr, February 13, 2013)

Our Office Appeared in the 2001 film SHALLOW HAL (Jim Dedman, February 28, 2013)

Laches – The Saddest of All Affirmative Defenses (Jim Dedman, March 12, 2013)

The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case: Distinguishing Between Facts and Theory (Nick Farr, March 19, 2013)

North Carolina Court Declares Harlem Shake “Over,” Enjoins YouTube From Accepting Further Videos Depicting Same (Jim Dedman, April 1, 2013)

The Perils of Expert Depositions and The Duration Thereof (Jim Dedman, May 2, 2013)

Killing Trees At Depositions – A Modest Proposal? (Jim Dedman, May 8, 2013)

Outrageous, Egregious, Preposterous: The Hoosier State Chilled Beer Law (Rob Green, May 21, 2013)

Mediation: Uncool Wiles and Stratagems (Jim Dedman, May 23, 2013)

SC Man Burns Down House Due to Witch Infestation, Found Not Guilty of Arson (Nick Farr, June 3, 2013)

No Matter What You Think of Scalia’s Opinions, This Guy Thinks They’re Musical (Frances Zacher, July 11, 2013)

Facebook Friendships In Litigation – Exploring Them In Detail (Jim Dedman, August 7, 2013)

NFL Litigation May Forever Change Football (Nick Farr, August 19, 2013)

Federal Court Denies State’s Motion To Seal Following Habeas Counsel’s “Ill-Advised” Facebook Post Citing Kris Kristofferson (Jim Dedman, September 5, 2013)

The Blue Book and Commercial Recording Citations (Jim Dedman, September 18, 2013)

FDA Considering Rule Change Affecting Suits Against Generic Drug Makers (Frances Zacher, November 13, 2013)

Titles of Nobility Act: A New Challenge To The Legal Profession? (Nick Farr, December 2, 2013)

Golfer Takes a Mulligan. Mayhem and Litigation Ensue. (Kyle White, December 16, 2013)

Recently, The New York Times published a “Retro Report” on the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case. The report included a 12 minute video on the “facts” of the case which contained interviews from the parties’ attorneys as well as a Wake Forest professor. Since we have already written ad nauseum about the facts and published a comprehensive FAQ file on the case, we will refrain from any unnecessary repetition. That said, the writer Hillary Stout’s well-done article, however, presents some novel issues worthy of comment. So here we go again.

Stout’s point is this: Regardless of your opinions on the merits of the Stella Liebeck case, significant safety advances have been made in the field of coffee safety – sculpted lids, lower serving temperatures, cup holders, et cetera. – since the verdict was rendered more than 20 years ago. While the actual effect of the Liebeck lawsuit on these advances is unclear, Stout’s point is well-taken. But, what common product with any potential to cause injury hasn’t been made safer over the last two decades? No matter the product, we should always seek safer, more convenient alternatives. Coffee is no exception. The advances in serving coffee are certainly designed with safety in mind. Interestingly, however, none of the safety advances involved lowering the serving temperature to less than 130 degrees – the temperature at which Dr. Turner Osler testified in the Liebeck case could have caused her third-degree burns. While the report states that McDonald’s has lowered its serving temperature from 180-190 degrees to 170-180 degrees (that of Starbucks), the lowered temperatures would not prevent burns such as Liebeck’s. Despite the advances, one fact remains: people like coffee hot.

As Stout properly points out, coffee, at least that purchased from restaurants, is far more prevalent today than it was in Liebeck’s era. No one who has ever driven past a Starbucks at 8:00 a.m. would contend otherwise. With greater consumption comes the increased chance of injury. Despite all of these safety advances, coffee accidents still occur. Stout reports that an average of 80 people a year are hospitalized for coffee and tea burns (many of which occurred at home) at the William Randolph Hearst Burn Center at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Whether the cup is more insulated or contains a sculpted lid, people will continue to have accidents when drinking a hot beverage. But, not everyone will file suit over it. Hot liquids, whether 130 degrees or 170 degrees, will burn if spilled. Absent lowering the temperature to a point at which the beverage becomes undrinkable, no safety advance will change that.

On another note: Remember the time The New York Times cited to our blog about the McDonald’s hot coffee case? If not, see here for more on that fateful day.

We here at Abnormal Use were saddened this week by the passing of music legend Lou Reed. It has been said again and again this week that there would be no punk rock without Lou Reed (and, of course, his band, The Velvet Underground.). Reed released some pretty darn good solo albums, as well. In fact, Reed’s influence and career highs were so meaningful that he is afforded some level of critical immunity for some of his creative missteps (placing him into a category with Bob Dylan and, perhaps, The Rolling Stones).  As we have previously mentioned, Lou Reed once released an album called Mistrial, the cover of which is depicted above. Released in the summer of 1986, the album is not among Reed’s best (but it is certain the one with the most appropriate title for use in a law blog post). Another interesting legal side note: Reed sang about the perils of divorce litigation in his song, “Baton Rouge,” which appeared on his 2000 album, Ecstasy. Whatever the case, if you’ve not already, go revisit Reed’s Transformer album and pay your respects to a musical visionary. Rock and roll is a lesser thing with his passing.

Accord to an email missive recently issued by one of our local federal courts, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina has established a Pro Se Settlement Assistance Program.  For more information on this program, please see here.

You know, with as much as we’ve written about the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case, you’d think we would know that country music singer Toby Keith referenced it in some of his lyrics. “Spill a cup of coffee / Make a million dollars,” he sings in his 2009 song, “American Ride,” from his album of the same name. Apparently, Liebeck’s family was not pleased.

Whoa! Silly string is illegal in Los Angeles! At least, sometimes it is!

Today sees the release of The Wolverine, the latest Marvel Comics movie blockbuster (once again featuring Hugh Jackman as the title character).  We’re torn over whether to see it after the disaster that was 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Above, you’ll find the cover of Wolverine #2, published way, way back in the golden age of X-Men comics in 1982. (Yes, we bought this issue and enjoyed it back in the 1980’s.). Though not legally themed (and thus, technically off topic for Friday Links), nostalgia prompts us to post this cover in light of the release of a major motion picture featuring the same character. Don’t worry; it’s okay to go off topic sometimes.

Sigh: “Why do people think the lady who sued McDonald’s over hot coffee is dumb?”  Once again, we direct everyone’s attention to Abnormal Use’s “Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ,” in which we used the original documents from the case and contemporary media accounts to dispel the myths about the case.

Meanwhile: “There seems to be something inherently sad attached to piano bars.

Meanwhile, in movie lawsuit news, we direct you to this article from Austinist entitled “Terrence Malick Can’t Be Bothered With Your Lawsuit.” Malick, of course, is the famed director of Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and Badlands.

Speaking of movies, this is the coolest (and scariest) movie trailers we’ve seen in some time. (Hat tip: Shaun Usher).

From time to time, we here at Abnormal Use receive recommendations on potential posts from our dear readers. Typically, readers alert us to wacky product lawsuits or hot coffee accidents. Such cases are right up our alley.

Other times, our readers think highly enough of us to send us cases like this one.

According to a report from Above the Law, a Tennessee attorney has sued Apple seeking protection for his porn addiction. That’s right. Apple created a porn addiction, and our readers thought we would be the perfect ones to write about it. They were correct, we suppose.

At first glance, the suit obviously sounds ridiculous. “Porn” addictions can be bred from anything. It depends on the user, not the vehicle bringing the access. On the other hand, the suit does raise some novel ideas. The plaintiff requests that Apple sell all products with a pre-installed porn blocker which can only be unlocked with a waiver filed with the company. The idea is not completely insane; however, we assume most people would prefer not to leave a paper trail granting them access to pornography. Plus, we would not envy the Apple employee charged with the handling of such waivers, as certainly, that worker would be inundated with paperwork.

Nonetheless, the plaintiff’s suit appears to be misplaced. The actual vehicle for the transmission of pornography in this case is the Internet itself – not Apple products. If Internet access to explicit material is a problem, then the proper target is much larger than Apple. Porn blockers on Apple computers will hardly prevent such access when the Internet is now as accessible as a water fountain.

We will monitor this suit as it moves forward, but we know how this one will probably end. The plaintiff will most likely get a legal lesson on not blaming other for his lack of self-control. If that weren’t the case, then porn-access litigation would snowball out of control (making the asbestos litigation look small by comparison). No one wants to pick up a catalog full of Victoria Secret models wearing overcoats.

(Hat Tip: Jim Beck of the Drug and Device Law blog).

Above, you’ll find the cover of Manhunter #21, published not so long ago in the halcyon days of 2006.  We see Kate Spencer, Manhunter’s alter ego, with her costume falling from her briefcase.  Get this! She’s an Assistant United States Attorney by day.  Here’s an excerpt from her character biography on Wikipedia:

Kate Spencer is a federal prosecutor who grows increasingly tired of seeing guilty criminals evade punishment. Copperhead, a supervillain on trial for multiple murders and cannibalism, avoids a death sentence and escapes from custody after killing two guards. An angry Kate takes matters into her own hands, stealing equipment from an evidence room and killing Copperhead. Calling herself Manhunter, Kate blackmails a former weapons manufacturer for numerous villains named Dylan Battles — who is in the Witness Protection Program — into building, maintaining, and upgrading her armor, weapons, and gadgets.

How about that?

Via his Twitter account, our own Stuart Mauney directs us to this article, entitled “Epidemic of Depressed Lawyers!“, by trucking lawyer Mark Perkins. As you may recall, Stuart has written on similar topics right here at Abnormal Use. In fact, not too long ago, Stuart served as the Chair of the SC Bar HELP Task Force, educating lawyers and judges about substance abuse and mental health issues in the legal profession. If you’d like to follow him on Twitter to learn more about these or other legal issues, you can do so here.

More evidence that Susan Saladoff’s “Hot Coffee” documentary is having an effect on the population. Sigh.

Don’t forget! You can follow Abnormal Use on Twitter here and on Facebook here! Drop us a line!

Above, you’ll find the cover of Police Comics #7, published way, way back in the 1940’s. You may recognize Plastic Man prominently depicted on its cover. However, we bring this issue to your attention due to the presence of one of the heroes showcased on the comics left sidebar: #711. Get this: By day, #711 was a lawyer, and a district attorney to boot! Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about him:

Daniel Dyce was a District Attorney who was almost an exact twin of his friend, Jacob Horn. Jacob was in prison, but wanted to see his wife give birth, so Daniel agreed to become a prisoner while Jacob was with his wife. However, Jacob is killed in a car crash on the way to the hospital, so Daniel was stuck in jail. Daniel was able to tunnel himself free, but instead of escaping, he decided to return to his cell. Each night he uses his tunnel to go outside and fight crime, then returns before the morning. Dyce adopts the name #711, a reference to his prisoner number. After two years of adventures Daniel Dyce was killed by the mobster Oscar Jones. The hero Destiny sees this take place, and starts his crime fighting career when #711 died, replacing his feature in Police Comics.

How about that?

Oh, my goodness! There’s a Third Amendment claim being made in litigation!

The folks at Reddit are now discussing the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case. We’ve talked about that case a time or two, we think. Haven’t we?

FYI: The new clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina is Robin L. Blume.

And the award for worst copyright lawsuit of the years is already decided, apparently.

The founder of the rock band Boston must pay his opponent’s costs in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit. “More Than A Feeling,” indeed.