The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case

 

At times, significant losses result from avoiding a small sacrifice, exemplified by "The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case." Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, sought $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical expenses. However, McDonald's, refusing to meet this request and offering only $800, ultimately faced a claim amount of $2.7 million in the aftermath of the case.

Now we enter the case:

Stella Liebeck

The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case—The Background

In 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, visited a McDonald’s drive-through in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she ordered a cup of coffee. Seated in the passenger seat with her grandson driving, Stella planned to add cream and sugar to her coffee, so she asked her grandson to park the car. Unfortunately, during this process, the hot coffee spilled onto her groin, causing severe burns to her thighs and buttocks.

 

Promptly seeking medical attention, Stella was diagnosed with third-degree burns covering over sixteen percent of her body. She underwent an eight-day hospital stay and required skin grafts. The incident resulted in lasting disfigurement on her inner thigh, enduring disabilities, and significant financial burdens, including substantial medical expenses. Additionally, Stella experienced a 20 percent loss of body weight following the accident.

The coffee served by McDonald's was exceptionally hot, reaching temperatures around 180 degrees Fahrenheit, and it was still between 165 and 170 degrees Fahrenheit when it spilled on Stella. Compounding the issue, she was wearing only cotton sweatpants, which proved inadequate in protecting her body from the scalding liquid.

 

The Trial

 

Following the ordeal, Stella asked McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. However, McDonald’s only offered to provide her with $800. In response, Stella sued McDonald’s for gross negligence.

 

During the trial, her lawyers presented the following evidence:

 

• The restaurant had a franchise-wide policy of serving coffee at around 185 degrees Fahrenheit. In comparison, coffee made at home is only about 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit.

• Coffee around 185 degrees Fahrenheit is not suitable to drink because it can burn the throat and mouth and cause third-degree burns after only two to three seconds of skin exposure.

• A third-degree burn does not heal without skin grafting and other types of surgery. It can also result in permanent scarring and debilitating pain.

• McDonald’s had known about the risk of severe burns from its hot coffee for more than ten years. During this time, the company’s coffee had burned more than 700 people, with many individuals receiving severe burns in the perineum, inner thighs, genital area, and buttocks.

• McDonald’s had no plans to reduce the temperature of its coffee.

• McDonald’s earned around $1.35 million daily from their coffee sales. An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the number of coffee cups the company cups served each year.

• Although McDonald’s initially claimed they thought the customers would take their coffee home to drink, they finally confessed they knew many of their customers drank their coffee right away. Therefore, the company knew people did not give their drinks enough time to cool and consequently drank coffee at dangerous temperatures.

The Results

 

As a consequence of the legal proceedings, the jury concluded that McDonald’s was negligent and bore 80 percent responsibility for the incident. Stella was granted $200,000 in compensatory damages, adjusted to $160,000 to accommodate her 20 percent share of negligence. Additionally, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, an amount symbolizing two days' worth of McDonald's coffee sales.

However, the presiding judge later reduced the punitive damages to three times the compensatory amount, resulting in a revised total of $640,000. Subsequently, during the appellate stage, McDonald’s and Stella reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum, resolving the case outside the courtroom.

 

The Controversy Surrounding the Case

 

Regrettably, due to the extensive media coverage surrounding the case, numerous misconceptions arose about the incident, unfairly depicting Stella as someone pursuing a frivolous lawsuit with the aim of winning exorbitant sums of money. Misinformation and falsehoods contributed to the formation of these opinions. Compounded by Stella's contractual obligation to refrain from discussing case details, the actual truth remained inaccessible to the public, fostering the persistence of inaccurate assumptions.

 

Consequently, the McDonald’s hot coffee case became a focal point for a smear campaign advocating tort reform. This narrative effectively shifted public perception, casting McDonald’s as the victim rather than Stella, further perpetuating a distorted understanding of the circumstances.