I have asked Frank Woodson, in his role as new President of the Alabama Association for Justice (ALAJ), to write a series of monthly articles involving actual court cases across the country. This new series will be called “The Mythbuster Series.” Frank, who practices in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, has agreed to handle this project.
It is the mission of ALAJ to make sure that any person who is injured because of another’s misconduct or negligence has access to justice in the courtroom. ALAJ works to preserve and strengthen the civil justice system so that all persons can have their day in court and receive equal access to justice. The first in the series involves a case that was used by the Tort Reformers to mislead the public and push their agenda.
THE MCDONALD’S COFFEE CASE
This is perhaps the most well known so-called “frivolous” case, but a great example of how well our country’s product liability laws work and effect needed change. McDonald’s got a fair trial, was even given post trial relief, but ultimately changed their practices for serving coffee for the better.
Stella Liebeck of New Mexico was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s parked car when she was severely burned by McDonald’s coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald’s.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck sought to have McDonalds pay her medical bills and settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused.
During discovery, McDonald’s produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck’s. This history documented McDonald’s knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonald’s also said during discovery that, based on a consultant’s advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other establishments in the area sold coffee at substantially lower temperatures, generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforced a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald’s had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.
Plaintiff’s expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonald’s asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company’s own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonald’s also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a “warning” but a “reminder” since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald’s coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald’s had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 – or three times compensatory damages – even though the judge called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous and willful. After remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.
Instead of being made fun of, Ms. Liebeck should be given an award for standing up for Justice, and promoting safety. McDonald’s did the right thing to make their coffee safe for its customers. Our civil justice system worked very well in this circumstance for all parties involved.
This McDonald’s case is a prime example of how tort-reform groups can stretch the truth and put a just result in a civil case in a bad light. When you read the truth about such cases things are put in a totally different light. We will feature cases each month that will help our readers understand how critically important the court system – and especially the jury system – is in this country.
Sources: AAJ and Georgia AJ websites
Contact us today for a free legal consultation with an experienced attorney.
Fields marked *may be required for submission.
If you would like to subscribe to the Jere Beasley Report digital edition, simply visit our Subscriptions page and provide the necessary information or call us at 800-898-2034.
Attorney Advertising - Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.