The McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit: Re-examined
Originally Published: 17 May 2020
Not often does a coffee lawsuit makes the headlines. Yet, Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation (1994) remains a significant case in tort law. A poster child for media sensationalism, this case is widely misunderstood.
Time to spill the legal…hot coffee.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman, purchased coffee from a McDonald's drive-through. Her grandson was driving the car and he pulled over in the parking lot. To add sugar and cream, she put the coffee in between her legs and accidentally spilt the contents over her lap.
Hospitalised for 8 days, Liebeck suffered third-degree burns to her thighs, buttocks, genital area and groin, amounting to 6% of her total body surface area. She required skin grafts and underwent treatment for 2 years.
Liebeck had no intention to sue initially. She wanted to settle with McDonald's for $200,000- most of which included the cost of medical bills. McDonald's only offered $800. Consequently, Liebeck sued the company in 1994. Her attorney filed the lawsuit on grounds of "gross negligence", arguing that the coffee served by McDonalds was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured."
THE TRIAL
During the trial, it came to light that McDonald's had previously received 700 reports of people burning themselves with coffee. McDonald's required its franchises to brew coffee at "195 to 205 degrees" Fahrenheit, and "sell it at 180 to 190 degrees" claiming that customers wanted it that way. Coffee served at that temperature could cause third-degree burns -if spilled- within three to seven seconds. As Liebeck's attorney Ken Wagner put it: "the coffee in question was brewed at temperatures that would approximate the temperature in your car's radiator after you drive from your office to home."
McDonald's admitted that its coffee was "not fit for consumption" but as one witness from McDonald's said at trial: "No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now."
THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT
"Woman spills coffee- wins $2.7m lawsuit against McDonalds"
Fact check: wrong.
The misrepresentation of the court's judgement is what attracted such widespread public attention towards the case.
Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages but this was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault. The jury awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages; this amount may appear high but amounted to only "two days' worth of national coffee sales for McDonalds at the time." However, the trial judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000. Both sides appealed this decision. Judge Robert Scott refused to grant a new trial but he called McDonald's behaviour "callous."
Punitive damages are awarded to penalise the defendant for their conduct rather than compensate the claimant, which is why they are awarded in addition to compensatory damages. This case is criticised for the high amount of punitive damages awarded but it's important to understand that because these damages intend to punish the person responsible or discourage such behaviour in the future, "the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person." Therefore, the high punitive damages were awarded to send a message to McDonald's, encouraging the company to change their practices such as lowering the temperature coffee is served at.
In the end, the parties entered into a settlement of an amount not disclosed to the public. An article by Vox predicts that Liebeck settled for "less than $600,000." While an article by American Museum of Tort Law says this amount could be less than $500,000. What we do know is that Liebeck did not walk away with over $2.7 million.
DID MCDONALD'S LOWER ITS TEMPERATURE?
A day after the verdict, the news media documented that "coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict." According to an article by the New York Times in 2013, McDonalds changed its franchisee handbook, requiring coffee to be served at temperatures ten degrees lower.
POST-VERDICT
The HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" shows how Liebeck's case was dubbed a "frivolous lawsuit" by large corporations who created campaigns to turn public opinion against lawsuits. One such example being 'Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse'; the documentary says corporations themselves hired protestors to make it look like people were fed up of excessive lawsuits.
It worked.
The New York Times Retro Report explores how Stella Liebeck was mocked and bullied by the media for years after the verdict. The report shows how tv shows such as The Simpsons and Seinfeld ridiculed the case and portrayed Liebeck as a greedy woman who filed a ridiculous lawsuit. The "Stella Awards" project was also created- applying as the official website says- "to any wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits- including some infamous bogus cases!"
The facts of the case were distorted by the media. For example, some people thought Liebeck herself was driving the car while holding the coffee between her legs. When those same people were shown pictures of her burnt skin, they immediately changed their perspective.
Stella Liebeck died in 2004, aged 91. Her daughter reflects saying: "the emotion that she went through… she just felt like people were coming at her." Liebeck should have been applauded for her bravery in standing up to a powerful corporation- yet she died knowing people thought of her as a joke.
Liebeck's case shows how important it is to read information from multiple sources rather than jumping to a wild conclusion based on a sensationalised report. The case also demonstrates how people need to be alert and aware of the motives behind campaigns. Read the facts before you believe the headlines.
Caffeinated case closed.