McDonald's Worker Attacked With Tampon

McDonalds worker tampon attackMost people who pass through a McDonald's drive-through are content to get their Happy Meal and get back on the road.

But then there's Rebecca Leigh Crimmins. The 27-year-old aspiring Australian model showed up at the Golden Arches in the suburb of Noosaville, located in the Australian province of Queensland, at 3 a.m. on Sept. 25. Intoxicated, she thought it might be fun to toy with the McDonald's attendant serving her.

"The passenger removed a large fries and yelled 'Oi, what's this in my fries?' " Sgt. Leanne Chawner said in rehashing the incident to The Australian. Crimmins then proceeded to get out of the car to accost the 19-year-old McDonald's worker at the drive-through window, said Chawner, and "the pair was involved in a discussion when the teenage victim felt something wet on his hand."

It turned out to be a tampon. Claiming to have never touched the worker's hand, Crimmins initially refused to be interviewed by police after being charged with common assault. (She also said the tampon was moist after a lime cordial was applied to it.) Regardless, Crimmins appeared in court on Tuesday to plead guilty.

"I accept this was a tampon filled with cordial," Court Magistrate John Parker told Crimmins, "but even on that basis ... it is still, nevertheless, a disgusting and abhorrent result and I hope you're thoroughly ashamed of yourself." Crimmins was fired from her waitressing job, and was ordered to fulfill 60 days of community service.

Crimmins' attack comes almost two years after another notable incident at a McDonald's drive-through. According to a report by the Chicago Sun Times, Sarah Thienes showed up at a West Side Chicago McDonald's drive-through on a December evening in 2009, in search of a cheeseburger. When allegedly told by a McDonald's employee that only breakfast sandwiches were available, she reportedly asked for a ham, cheese and egg on a bagel. When that item was also said to be unavailable, an altercation ensued between Thienes and the restaurant worker during which the worker reportedly spat at Thienes. Thienes filed suit, seeking more than $300,000 in damages for emotional distress and battery.

The matter has yet to be settled. But whatever its resolution, it would have a tough time gaining greater attention than the 1994 case, Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants. When 79-year-old Stella Liebeck sued the fast food chain, she claimed an overly hot cup of coffee contributed to her burns after she dropped the brew on herself in her car, also at a drive-through. She was initially awarded some $3 million in damages, but the number was reduced after an appeals process and confidential out-of-court settlements. Nevertheless, ABC News called the incident the "poster child of excessive lawsuits."



Next: Ho Ho Ho? Why Seasonal Employment Is A-OK



Don't Miss: Companies Hiring Now



Stories from 24/7 Wall St.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

14 Comments

Filter by:
Alice Polarbear

Dealing with the public really sucks! Most people are nice, or at least pleasantly forgettable. The total turds, such as those described above, really stand out and the bad memories of encountering them linger forever. The cow who slapped a wet tampon into someone's hand deserves worse than she got. Thienes wouldn't have been spat upon if she hadn't driven some poor worker to the outer limits of frustration. She deserved it, and if I were on the jury she wouldn't get a cent. As for Stella Liebeck ...the idiot had held the cup of hot coffee between her thighs while she or someone else drove a car. Even if the coffee had been 130F it would have burned her. I am sick to death of jerks behaving badly, especially when they sue.

November 24 2011 at 4:56 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Tom

When life gives you a tampon....Make instant tea. Oh, that's not what the string is intended for?

November 21 2011 at 7:54 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Stacey

In addition, McDonald's had been repeatedly warned to lower the temperature of their coffee over a period of several years. They were told by several experts that coffee at 185 degrees would probably cause third degree burns. They refused to lower it "that is what their customers wanted." Now miraculously they have lowered it to 158 degrees which should be plenty hot since home coffee machines only brew to 135-140 degrees. It is amazing to me how when the TRUTH is known, people are not so quick to judge someone for filing a lawsuit. Something needed to happen for them to listen! It finally did, but at the expense of this poor woman!

November 21 2011 at 6:41 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Stacey's comment
Arnold

Absolutely correct. What gets my goat is that ABC News, which likes to think of itself as a high-class, professional news-gathering organization, didn't have the brains to go and check out whether overly hot coffee has been an issue for some time before this woman was scalded. This kind of laziness and incompetence is the single biggest reason I don't watch television news, especially the network stuff. To misquote Jefferson, "I'd rather be uninformed than misinformed by the networks".

November 22 2011 at 2:27 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jodie

Thanks for your reply Stacey. I'm annoyed that that bit about ABC's opinion was even included since it was completely irrelevant to the story. I researched the McDonalds coffee lawsuit as part of a college class project and found the lawsuit to be COMPLETELY right-on. I was very dismayed at McDonalds lack of response to the hundreds of other mouth and skin injuries reported over the preceding years. The coffee was being served at a temperature that would scald and burn tissue...not what I want when I want too sip the coffee I purchased NOW rather than in 20 minutes when I arrive at work. The burns and skin grafts required to repair the tissue on the woman--the pictures are just min-dboggling that the beverage was hot enough to do the amount of damage that it did. The lawsuit was just. The "product" was dangerous. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed.

November 23 2011 at 11:43 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Peter M

Step back, I've got an unused tampon and I'm not afraid to use it!!!!!!!

November 21 2011 at 5:53 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
gcore97117

Too bad she wasn't drinking Bloody Marys!!

November 19 2011 at 11:52 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
soicanleavecomments

Thank you for doing. The laugh I just had was worth all the bs you had to go through. Thanks.

November 17 2011 at 3:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Tombstone5780

Ok wait as for the old woman how was it McD's fault she spilled her coffee on herself ? Did Ronald himself come out and pour it on her ? After all she knew it was hot otherwise it would have been billed as Iced coffee ! Why should corporations and America be held hostage at other peoples stupidity or clumsiness. Do I feel sorry for her sure but is McD's responsible No ! Frivilous lawsuit written all over it. No for the Aussies that is just retarded. Oh my she touched me with a tampon that was wet but it was colorless and we ll yes maybe it did smell of booze. I can tell you that 19 year olds in Aussieland know about booze more than likely before they are 6 lol. Wash your hand you wuss and grow a pair. I used to love the Aussies for being tough but now i'm just not sure.

November 15 2011 at 10:56 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Tombstone5780's comment
Arnold

Your analysis of the case is completely wrong, based obviously on ignorance of the supporting evidence. That she spilled the coffee on herself was not in dispute; that Mickey D's insisted on heating the coffee to a temperature that would burn your skin if you spill it was the real issue. It developed after investigation that they had been told several times by professional organizations that they should lower the temp, primarily because it's too easy to spill the coffee when you're in a moving vehicle. It also developed that several prior incidents had already occured, with McDonald's quietly settling the claims out of court. In this incident, the woman was burned badly enough that she needed hospital treatment of 3rd degree burns. After all of this came out in the trial, the jury apparently decided that something has to get their attention, so they awarded the woman the $3 mill.
Today, the coffee you get at a McDonald's is in what most people would consider a normal range of temperature, and this is entirely due to the bad publicity this case created for them, and, possibly, a fear that, if someone were to be as badly burned again this way, it would cost them BIG bucks the next time.

November 22 2011 at 2:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
cheppa2000

It should also be noted that Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns, underwent skin grafts and ended up in the hospital for eight days. McDonald's and their lawyers did a PR move to discredit her which is why idiots like Fastenberg continue to perpetuate the myth that she was not harmed or deserving of the verdict. As S. said, she only wanted the $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and when McDonald's refused, she went after them. And won.

Next time due your homework Dan Fastenberg. Shoddy reporting such as this only serves to make you look stupid.

November 12 2011 at 11:29 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to cheppa2000's comment
bevviehedstrom

"an overly hot cup of coffee contributed to her burns after she dropped the brew on herself in her car, also at a drive-through."

This infers that Stella Liebeck was driving. She was not. She was a passenger. Also, the car was PARKED when Stella Liebeck was scalded.

Link to photo of Stella Liebeck's burns. Warning: Graphic!

http://travis.pflanz.me/assets/stella_liebeck_burned_by_mcdonalds_coffee-524x373.jpg

"ABC News called the incident the "poster child of excessive lawsuits." -- Absurd.

November 20 2011 at 5:04 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
S.

Actually, that woman in the McDonald's lawsuit was ready to settle for TWENTY GRAND (she even had to get skin grafts) but McDonald's refused. She then sued and was awarded a little over half a million, and minus medical bills and such, plus the amount from that held back due to it partially being her fault, she got a lot less.

McDonald's should have settled for the $20,000.

November 11 2011 at 7:28 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
wooded

I'll get you. I have a tampon and I'm not afraid to use it on you!!!

November 09 2011 at 3:20 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Search Articles

Top Companies Hiring

Week of Oct 19 - 26
View All

Picks From the Web