|
|
|
|
|
The famous/infamous "McDonald's Coffee Spill Lawsuit" revisited
The case has entered the popular culture as a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the justice system: frivolous lawsuits, unscrupulous attorneys, unreliable juries, greedy plaintiffs who blame others for their own mistakes, and judges who aid and abet the whole sordid process. The McDonald’s Coffee Spill Case is a classic example of “miscarriage of justice,” right? Wrong. Slip-and-sue.com has researched what really happened. When one looks at the real facts of the case, an entirely different picture emerges than the one painted by typical retellings of the story… The plaintiff and the spill incident. The plaintiff, a 79-year-old grandmother named Stella Liebeck, was not driving, nor was the vehicle moving when the injury occurred. While the car was stopped, Mrs. Liebeck, who was sitting in the passenger seat, tried to hold the coffee cup between her knees as she removed the lid. The cup tipped over, spilling the contents into her lap. The injury. Mrs. Liebeck’s injury was anything but trivial. The scalding-hot coffee caused third-degree burns over 16% of her body, including her genital area. She had to be hospitalized for eight days. She required extensive skin grafts and was permanently scarred. She was disabled for a period of two years. During the ensuing trial, Mrs. Liebeck’s physician testified that her injury was one of the worst cases of scalding he’d ever seen. The coffee. At the time, McDonalds’ corporate specifications explicitly called for coffee to be served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. An expert witness testified that liquids at this temperature will cause third degree burns of human skin in two to seven seconds. (Coffee served at home is typically 135 to 140 degrees.) McDonalds’ culpability. During discovery, McDonald’s was required to produce corporate documents of similar cases. More than 700(!) claims had been made against McDonald’s, and many of the victims had suffered third-degree burns similar to Mrs. Liebeck’s. Yet the company had refused to change its policy, supposedly because a consultant had recommended the high temperature as a way to maintain optimum taste. Some have speculated that the real reason for the high temperature was to slow down consumption of the coffee, reducing the demand for free refills. Greed? Despite the pain caused by her injury, and the lengthy and expensive treatments she required, Mrs. Liebeck originally offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. The corporation offered her a mere $800, so the case went to trial. The settlement. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages to Mrs. Liebeck, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, essentially as punishment of McDonald’s for its callous treatment of Mrs. Liebeck, and its years of ignoring hundreds of similar injuries. This amount was held to be reasonable given that it represented only two days’ worth of McDonalds’ revenue from coffee sales alone. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages, however, to $480,000. After further negotiation, Mrs. Liebeck ultimately received $640,000. The aftermath. In subsequent investigations, it was found that the Albuquerque McDonalds where the incident occurred had reduced the temperature of its coffee to 158 degrees. The corporation as a whole ultimately changed its policies as well, and now explicitly forbids serving coffee at the scalding temperatures that injured Mrs. Liebeck. There is no way of knowing how many additional injuries have been prevented by this case, which forced McDonald’s to change its policies, and which has doubtlessly served as a warning to other restaurants as well. So what’s the bottom line? The case was neither about a gold-digger, nor a defendant that was taken to the cleaners based on a flimsy pretext. Rather, a huge corporation had knowingly injured hundreds of people as the direct result of a needlessly dangerous corporate policy, and was finally held accountable by one of the victims. The loss to McDonald’s soon disappeared behind the decimal point in its financial statements, in which not the dollar, but the million is the unit of reporting. Mrs. Liebeck’s financial gain hardly made her rich, but it did serve as reasonable compensation for her extensive medical bills—and for the extensive pain and suffering that her injury caused her. Those interested in reading more about the case can find additional documentation here, here, and here. |
Everybody “knows” the story: A lady bought coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through, spilled it on herself, and suffered minor burns. She sued McDonald’s, and with the help of a clever attorney, managed to convince a jury that it was all McDonalds’ fault for not providing adequate warning that hot coffee is indeed hot, and can scald you. The lady walked away with a multi-million dollar award.
31 Responses to “The famous/infamous “McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit” revisited”
BrianD
01 Dec 2007 at 9:07 am
Amazing. I’m going to pass this on. I had no idea. I wonder if the better known version of the story was planted by the insurance industry…
swag
01 Dec 2007 at 1:27 pm
Anyone who still cites urban legends and folklore without checking the facts is ignorant and should stay home for the elections in 2008.
spaceman
04 Dec 2007 at 12:37 pm
Perfect answer Swag! Let’s make it so that only those people that spend their lives researching stupid, dumb and *sometimes* incorrect stories have the right to vote. I mean, that’s so much easier than researching important matters like envorinmental issues, national security, etc. etc.
By the way, exactly what does this issue have to do with the elections anyway? :rolleyes:
Only in America … – ScubaBoard
08 May 2008 at 12:39 pm
[...] you mean the same country where a woman sued because she poured her hot coffee in her lap? The famous/infamous "McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit" revisited | slip-and-sue.com or a Judge sued for $65 million because a dry cleaners lost his pants? Judge sues for $65 million over pants | Vote – Weird news – MSNBC.com [...]
MaximRecoil
06 Nov 2008 at 9:40 am
This article changes nothing about the absurdity of the lawsuit. She spilled the coffee, and it was no one’s
fault but her own. Putting a flexible cup of hot liquid between your legs and then attempting to remove the
cover (a cover which doesn’t need to be removed in the first place due to built in sipping provisions) is
pure foolishness.
Regarding the claim that “Coffee served at home is typically 135 to 140 degrees”; that would only be if
you have a poor coffee machine. The optimal brewing temperature for coffee is between 195 and 205
degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, there is a lot of instant coffee served at home as well, and this is typically
made by boiling water in a tea kettle. Boiling water is of course, 212 degrees.
It doesn’t matter how many people spill coffee on themselves. It is always their own fault. It is pretty sad
when you can’t buy a cup of coffee brewed at a proper temperature because it is considered too
dangerous and too much of a liability. Welcome to the Age of the Wimp.
cuban
17 Dec 2008 at 7:44 pm
maximum recoil is smart. I just cut myself with a pocket knife, let me go sue the company because now i have a scar. wtf is up with this.
I can understand if the worker spilled the coffee on her and it caused he to crash her car. Thats realistic, but sueing a company for it having hot coffee. Lets go sue an ice cream place because when i went swimming in a pool of ice cream, i got hypothermia. idiots
Jessica Eve-Domino
22 Dec 2008 at 11:43 am
I do understand that corporations need to be held liable for dangerous and ineffective policies. Indeed. However, when a jury says that it is only 20% your fault when you spill a drink on yourself, I feel like they’re saying, “We really don’t care that you’re a klutz. We just want the big company to pay up.” Examples like this may avert people from taking necessary risks in life, like starting a Fortune 500 company.
Dale
27 Dec 2008 at 9:36 pm
Oh.
For the ignorant – while it may be necessary to brew coffee at 195 degrees F for optimum flavor, that doesn’t mean it should be consumed at that temperature.
A person removes the lid from a cup of takeout coffee to add cream and sugar, for the fool who rejected the idea that any reasonable person would remove the lid.
Martin
26 Feb 2009 at 7:24 pm
Regardless of the amount of effort made in this article to present this case as reasonable, I for one, still think its ridiculous that any money was awarded at all.
If anything, i’m surprised to find out there are no other exceptional untold details of this case.
A women held a cup of coffee between her legs and tried to open it. That is a stupid thing to do, and it is 100% her fault for getting burnt!
Should companies be forbidden from selling kettles which heat water to boiling point? This is completely absurd!
And who cares if she attempted to claim $20,000 dollars first? Some idiot though that heating a coffee to a normal temperature deserved millions of dollars of punishment.
I’m sorry but i’m completely unconvinced by this poor attempt to justify such stupidity
Mary
04 Mar 2009 at 9:49 am
It isn’t some random temperature suggested to brew coffee, go on any brew website and it will tell you a range to brew coffee. If you brew at a lower temperature then the coffee tastes really bad. Then people complain about bad coffee. Did McD’s brew higher than recommended temps? If they were brewing within anormal and accepted brew range I don’t see where someone can say they were negligent or responsible, coffee is hot!
Greyness
17 Mar 2009 at 1:07 pm
I do feel sorry for the womans pain. I’ve been there. While in the Navy I was carrying a 5 gallon bucket of steaming hot water across the galley deck when my feet slipped out from under me on some liquid soap. My own dumb ass fault…Hurt like hell for several months. However, I have NO FREAKIN clue how in the hell a jury came up with the thought that living to the age of 79 and still somehow not having sense enough to NOT put a cup of hot coffee between your knee’s is 80% McDonalds fault??? I couldn’t possibly care less about McDonald’s. Thier food is sodium injected crap flavored with MSG. But still,.. there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that the woman recieved ANYTHING….. Much less 640 Grand………..
Jim
22 Apr 2009 at 3:10 pm
I do have some knowledge of the case. The lady suffered 3rd degfree burns over 8% of her body, 2nd degfree over another 10% or so, a circumcision by scalding, and was horribly disfigured and in pain for the rest of her life. She died a few years ago.
The coffee McDonald’s served was substantially hotter than other franchises. Msr. Liebeck wrote McDonalds asking if they could assist with her medical expenses, she made no financial demands, and politely asked them if they could reduce the temperature of their coffee; they responded with an insulting letter implying she was a gold digger and offered her $800.00. The insulting tone of the reply from McDonalds prompted her suit.
Once in court, the judge and, more importantly, the jury, found McDonald’s attitude to be arrogant, disrespectful to the court, and untruthful. One of their executives in charge of quality control admitted that the coffee was unusually hot by restaurant standards, that an unsuspecting customer may not know it could be disfiguringly hot, that accidents do happen, and that they had had 700 scalding incidents over the past several years, some quite serious. He then anounced arrogantly and impatiently in open court that “I have better things to do than worry about people spilling coffee on themselves.” That sealed the verdict.
Everyone is for tort reform until they need a lawyer.
MaximRecoil
27 Jun 2009 at 6:58 pm
Dale said: “For the ignorant – while it may be necessary to brew coffee at 195 degrees F for optimum flavor, that
doesn’t mean it should be consumed at that temperature.”
If you want the coffee fresh, you drink it as soon after brewing as possible. This means you take small
sips at first. Additionally, plenty of people start drinking their instant coffee as soon as they have made it,
and that stuff was just *boiling* moments before.
Dale said: “A person removes the lid from a cup of takeout coffee to add cream and sugar, for the fool
who rejected the idea that any reasonable person would remove the lid.”
I don’t know what takeouts you’re going to, but McDonald’s puts the cream and sugar into the coffee
before handing it to you at the window, based on what you specified when you ordered it. Also, I didn’t
“reject the idea that any reasonable person would remove the lid,” I rejected the idea that any reasonable
person would put the coffee beween their legs and then try to remove the lid.
Mark
06 Jul 2009 at 4:50 pm
Max, I agree 100% with all you say, but must make a correction. McDonald’s puts in the cream & sugar now days, but this is a fairly new thing for them (it was only about a year ago that they began advertising this “thrilling new concept” of them doing it for you).
Jim, who states to “have some knowledge of this case” (how he would have any more than anyone else here I don’t know. Everything on this case is avail. on the net and is used in many law classes as the poster child of frivolous lawsuits), conveniently leaves out some important aspects. Yes, McDonald’s did have 700 complaints of burns ranging from scalds to real injuries., but this was over a ten year period. This brings up the point of the amount of coffee McDonald’s sells. The amount of course is in the TENS of BILLIONS. In fact, that number of 700 complaints works out to 1 in 24,000,000. A product that hurts one in twenty-four million people is not “unreasonably dangerous” , especially when the vast majority of the 700 incidents were not the sort of grievous injuries Ms. Liebeck had. (McDonald’s had settled previous cases, but the cases were incidents where the McDonald’s employees had spilled the coffee.) However, the jury took the 1-in-24 million statistic not as evidence that McDonald’s coffee was not dangerous, but as evidence that McDonald’s cared more about statistics than people — when in fact the statistic should have been used to throw the case out.
Instead of the court ordering McDonald’s to pay out large sums of cash to extremely stupid people, they should have put her (and people like her) under a court order not to breed.
Nose
29 Jul 2009 at 2:58 pm
For those of you who think this is unreasonable, think about it. The coffee was spilled in her LAP, meaning her genital area had either second or third degree burns. She wanted 20 thousand so she could pay for the medical bills. After those, there wouldn’t have been much money left from it.
I just burnt the tastebuds from the roof of my mouth. Never having McD’s coffee before, my friend who bought it didn’ t think to warn me of the tempurature, nor the person at the window. The only spot on the cup that said anything was the lid, black with the BLACK warning,”I’m Hot!”. Not only is it slightly hard to notice this because of the color, it seems as if it’s supposed to be cute, and not seriously burn worthy.
You all act as if they warn you every time.
Lee
19 Aug 2009 at 8:06 am
-Nose:
“You all act as if they warn you every time. ”
You need to be warned every time you buy a coffee that it’s hot?
In fact, you need your friend to warn you?
Maybe you should write on your wallet “Remember, stuff you buy that’s not cold is hot!”
Blackout question – Page 2 – JeepForum.com
24 Aug 2009 at 9:05 pm
[...] Originally Posted by RubaDub06 Just like the dumb hag that spilled coffee in her lap and then sued McDonald’s because she said that she didn’t know her coffee was hot. Yep, just letting everyone know first. I always thought the McDonald’s coffee case was a bit silly, then someone pointed me to the facts. There is a bit more to the story. The famous/infamous "McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit" revisited | slip-and-sue.com [...]
PopTart – Saturn ION RedLine Forums
06 Oct 2009 at 11:14 pm
[...] The famous/infamous "McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit" revisited | slip-and-sue.com __________________ (Race Motor) Fully Forged, Cammed, 2.6, Devils Own meth injection Full bolt on, Self tuned, and every bolt on under the sun. (Daily Driver) Stock internal, 2.8, 60s, Non-meth, Self tuned and every bolt on under the sun…..again. [...]
Paul E. Smith
03 Nov 2009 at 11:28 am
There is hot and then there is Melt your face off hot. I remember when they use to serve it that hot and it always seemed over the top.
Funny how Republicans STILL site this case as an abject lesson they feel points to the need for Tort Reform. The real story clearly shows that “Big Business” needs to be held accountable and sometimes is.
Clay
05 Dec 2009 at 2:21 pm
The real problem is not that the lawsuit was justified or was frivolous. It is that it was used by the insurance companies to get tort reform enacted.
Because of the tort reforms there are many persons who cannot get justice because of a true injury which was not their fault.
Lawyers will no longer take a malpractice case because the upper limit of allowed damages are so low that they actually lose money even if they win.
Hannah
07 Dec 2009 at 9:00 am
She shouldn’t have gotten anything because it was her fault.
pamela
08 Jan 2010 at 10:00 am
i, for one, used to feel like the lawsuit was frivolous. until 3 days ago. i went to mcdonalds and ordered a filet of fish. i order them a lot. i have never had a problem with mcdonalds food until now. i got the sandwich and drove across the parking lot to pick up a friend after work. while waiting outside…in bitter cold weather, i bit into the filet of fish. i received burns on my tongue when the scalding liquids in the fish washed over my tongue. the bun did not feel hot and i had never had this happen before. i assumed the sandwich was ok to eat. the pain in my tongue has yet to subside. i made a report with mcdonalds because i want them to be aware of the danger of scalding from the sandwich if it is eaten too soon after coming from the cooker. the package should have a caution hot food label. so i know how the lady felt. any lawyers want my case? because of the way the mcdonalds acted when i filed a report, i would definately sue them. they told me in no uncertain terms, oh well, we are sorry for your pain but it is our goal to serve HOT fresh food. we will send you some coupons for the trouble you went through. assholes. what if a you child gets burned? this really ticked me off.
Nate C
04 Feb 2010 at 9:22 am
Now you should be forced to sign a waver every day before you leave your house…
Deb
08 Mar 2010 at 11:48 am
@Pamela..You are joking right? I’ve eaten a lot of fish sandwiches from McD’s and some of them have been hotter than others. but common sense made me check the food before taking a huge bite.
Looks to me like you are looking for a little bit of cash. Common sense seems to have left the building.
this case is a fiasco no matter how you look at it. It’s just people being too lazy to take responsibility for their actions and trying to blame someone else for their mistakes
Really??
11 Mar 2010 at 9:05 am
I have always thought that this case got TOO MUCH attention and that the plaintiff got TOO MUCH money for this. Granted when someone is hurt because of something in your company it it not a great idea to be arrogant and insensitive about it. BUT if you order something COOKED (Pamela) or HEATED it would be safe to assume that you should assume IT IS HOT!! I feel so sorry that the lady was burmed and that sustained all of the injuries that she did BUT she ordered HOT BREWED COFFEE not Ice coffee! If no one in the establishment did something to cause that coffee to fall on to her skin then it was her fault and unfortunately she should have been liable for her own injuries.
kram
16 Mar 2010 at 7:53 pm
This is illustrative of our society; we are all victims and someone should pay. This lack of any responsibility being placed upon individuals is the same problem with why physicians practice defensive medicine. If any rare event occurs even though commonly practiced and accepted standards are followed, someone with money should pay and that will bring justice (lets see if the lawyers will accept just a sincere apology and covering the actual expenses for a settlement). Its the best illustration of how our US society is going down the tubes as life should be perfectly orchestrated and if you sneeze in my presence and I get a cold you will pay!
Greg P
26 Mar 2010 at 6:10 pm
LOL… you forgot to add the part where she sat in the scalding coffee for 90 seconds!!! I would be more understanding if it had been an instant one or two seconds of exposure kind of thing. But 90 seconds?!
Other than that, millions of customers now get cold coffee because ONE PERSON can’t figure out how to add cream and sugar without dumping the entire contents in their groin. Makes me wonder how she survived to 79.
Hobbes
03 Apr 2010 at 7:07 am
This article, while mostly true, is only telling half the story.
-Yes it is sad that an old woman was injured so badly. However the point of law isn’t simply award money to pitiable people, but to deter bad behavior. Let’s look at the objectively, not from the point of view of the pitiable old lady.
-185 degrees F is a base standard for good coffee. High quality home coffee makers make it at LEAST at this temperature and usually higher. Also, the most successful restaurants in terms of coffee hand out their coffee at a similar or even higher temperature. This includes places such as Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts and, to this day, McDonald’s – the bit about them lowering their temperature is completely false as it is company policy to keep the coffee between around 175-190. Yes, it is a very hot temperature. It is also, however, an industry standard which people enjoy. If they didn’t the market would demand a lesser temperature.
-700 complaints of coffee burns over 10 years is very miniscule. We are talking numbers around 10 BILLION cups served, at least. There is a better ratio for being struck by lightning by a pretty hefty margin. Also keep in mind that these complaints were not all the same as this one. They ranged in severity and accountability.
-The woman did herself no favors. She attempted to balance the cup between her legs as she opened the cover, was wearing a fabric which soaked in the coffee and pressed it tight to her skin, and sat burning in a puddle of the stuff for a good 90 seconds. It takes two to seven seconds to reach third degree burns at 185 degrees, correct? In the case they were claiming other restaurants they tested typically were around 20 degrees less. At 165 degrees for 90 seconds, the injuries she suffered would be nearly the same.
-The woman’s medical bills were $11,000. $20,000 was simply too much, especially considering it was her own negligence and clumsiness which caused the injury. That was the lowest amount she ever asked for. The next time she offered a settlement the number had somehow jumped up to $300,000.
-To say the $2.7 was punishment for McDonald’s ignoring other burn cases is simply ignorant. They had settled with others before, typically when one of their employees was responsible. Also to claim this number is reasonable blatantly ignores the fact that the judge disagreed or else he wouldn’t have reduced the amount so significantly.
-To say this case prevented further injury is also downright ignorant. Temperature for good coffee has only raised since then, if anything, and the only things which have changed since the incident is the size of the warning label which, let’s be honest, is completely worthless. Everyone knows coffee is hot and everyone ignores the warning because they know it.
Now let’s be simple about this. McDonald’s handled the situation supremely arrogantly and poorly. This does not make them any more at fault for the situation. It was the woman’s clumsiness which spilled the coffee and she sat in it long enough in the worst conditions that she would have been severely burned no matter the place she got it from as long as it was fresh. I can buy a 100 lbs. air conditioner, try carrying up the stairs only to have my pants catch on something and overbalance only to fall and break my back, but do we say it’s the seller’s fault for giving me an air conditioner that was too big? Would it have even made a difference should it have been half the weight?
and Calvin
26 May 2010 at 11:30 am
I can’t understand why the woman didn’t also sue the driver of her car, her grandson, for not offering to lend her a hand with the coffee? Makes more sense to me.
Lorrie
06 Jun 2010 at 1:27 am
Some people really have no sense or compassion. She was an elderly woman who was horribly injured. Would you hand your own grandmother coffee that was that hot? Or a child? No? Than why should a restaurant do it? Serving coffee to a customer that is so hot that is could be disfiguring is irresponsible to the point that restitution must be made. They knew of other injuries prior to this one that were caused by coffee that was far hotter than is safe for anyone. McDonalds could have chosen to do the right thing, but decided not to. There was no excuse for McDonalds thoughtlessness or bad behavior.
joseph
07 Jun 2010 at 12:50 pm
Lorrie you stated Would you hand your own grandmother coffee that was that hot? Or a child? No? Than why should a restaurant do it?
It was her grandson that gave her the coffee she was a passanger not the driver so McDonalds did not hand it to her.
Leave a Reply