Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain. The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $ 20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence. Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at , McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million () in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The  trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. It was cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation; ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". Ex-attorney Susan Saladoff sees the portrayal in the media as purposeful misrepresentation due to political  and corporate influence. In June 2011, HBO premiered "Hot Coffee", a documentary that discussed in depth how the "Liebeck" case has centered in debates on tort reform. Plaintiff. Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912 and was 79 at the time of her lawsuit. She died on August 5, 2004 at the age of 91. Background. Burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of an Albuquerque McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a  1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent  of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her to . After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. Pre-trial. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately  $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial; McDonald's  refused both. Trial and verdict. Trial. The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at . Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than , and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20°F (11°C) lower than  McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. Lowering the temperature to would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those  who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control  manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. Verdict. A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Though there  was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. According to "The New York Times", the jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues, about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision  was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. The Albuquerque Journal ran the first story of the verdict, followed by the Associated Press wire, which was picked up by newspapers around the world. Aftermath. The Liebeck case is cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation. ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits". Legal commentator Jonathan Turley called it "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to  poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in "Liebeck" by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although it is not clear whether McDonald's in fact had done so. Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on  the company's part. They state that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury. Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. Similar lawsuits. In "McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation" (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer  Bunn-O-Matic, finding that hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous". In "Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd." (2002), a similar lawsuit in the United Kingdom failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature. Since "Liebeck", major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A, Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King, hospitals, and McDonald's have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. There have also been lawsuits over injuries from other hot liquids. Two years prior to "Liebeck", a similar lawsuit was settled during  the trial for $15 million due to injuries from a sink in a rented apartment. Coffee temperature. Since "Liebeck", McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at , relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of  2004, Starbucks sells coffee at , and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is . Section::::"Hot Coffee" documentary. On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems titled "Hot Coffee". A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns. The film also discussed in great depth how "Liebeck v.  McDonald's Restaurants" is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts. It contends that corporations have spent millions promoting misconceptions of tort cases in order to promote tort reform. In reality, the majority of damages in the case were punitive due to McDonald's' reckless disregard for the number of burn victims prior to Liebeck. Section::::"The New York Times" Retro Report. On October 21, 2013, "The New York Times" published a Retro Report video about the media reaction and an accompanying article about the changes in coffee drinking over 20  years. "The New York Times" noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide. The report underscored that the narrative of the story was distorted in the media, in which the "condensed telling of the story created its own version of the truth" where McDonald's rather than Liebeck was portrayed as the victim. An October 25 follow-up article noted that the video had more than one million views and had sparked vigorous debate in the online comments.