When the subject of frivolous lawsuits comes up, someone always mentions the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit as an example, because the short version sounds so outrageous: a woman sued McDonalds because her coffee was served hot. But the short version doesn't tell us much.
The world’s most infamous cup of coffee spilled on February 27, 1992 in Albuquerque, NM. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother, was a passenger in her grandson’s car when they drove through at a McDonald’s, and after she received her styrofoam cup of joe her grandson pulled the car forward and parked so Liebeck could mix in her cream and sugar. Liebeck braced the cup between her knees, but when she tried to pull off the cup’s lid, the entire cup of coffee spilled into her lap. Although subsequent developments in the courtroom turned Liebeck and her case into objects of derision, it’s worth noting that she actually suffered legitimate injuries from the accident. Liebeck’s sweatpants absorbed the hot coffee and held it next to her skin, which helped lead to third degree burns on six percent of her body. Liebeck ended up spending eight days in the hospital and undergoing skin grafts to counter the effects of the burns.
But that's only the beginning of the story. Liebeck asked McDonalds for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost wages. McDonalds offered $800. That's when the story starts to get complicated. Read the entire account of how a jury decided to award Liebeck $2.9 million when the case went to court (and that's not even the end) at mental_floss. Link
It also seems clear that the plaintiff was to blame for holding scalding hot coffee between her knees, in a car.
And it also seems clear the jury is to blame most of all for assigning 80% blame to McDonalds and a ridiculous judgment out of any proportion to the injury sustained.
Ka CHING!!!!!!!!!!!
Lose this right at your peril.
- McDonald's had known for a decade that its coffee was burning customers, but had done nothing about it.
- Grandmother originally sought $20,000 to cover her medical bills and lost wages. The jury ended up awarding her 10 times that in compensatory damages; after several rounds of negotiations and a full trial, this probably didn't cover much more than her legal fees.
- Finally, the $2.7 million was in punitive damages. It was not intended to compensate the grandmother, but rather to punish McDonald's for knowingly serving dangerously hot coffee to its customers for a decade.
Asking people to RTFA, however, apparently is.
Second, the number of burn incidents over the number of cups sold is something like one in twenty-four million. There are more injuries requiring hospitalization annually from tea-cozys than than from hot McDonalds coffee.
I think the concept that the deepest pockets need to pay "compensation" when there is severe injury is a great moral hazard in our society.
McDonalds coffee was really unreasonably hot. McDonalds had previous complaints about people receiving severe burns to their hands while just caring the coffee to their table.
Secondly the temperature of the Coffee was discovered to be higher then the temperature need to melt human flesh.
Thirdly cup holders did not become a standard feature in car until AFTER this case. At the time most people especially women would hold beverage between their legs.
Fourthly the pants that Stella was wearing was made of fabric with a low melt point. When the coffee spilled it melt her pants into her skin. In fact her burns were so severe that you see the bone.
Lastly the reason she sued was because her hospital bills were so high, that she was going to lose everything. By suing McDonalds she was just hoping to get enough to pay the bills.
For those posting "people are sue happy" - this was sort of the case that got the ball rolling. Back then it was not common to see "I am not liable for my own stupidity" lawsuits.
Both parties are at fault.
The Mc D's in the images is not where it happened. The Mc D's it happened at is right around the corner from a hospital. why they did not drive ther after the spill has always puzzled me.
>First off, McDonalds coffee was not unreasonably hot.
It was unreasonably hot. It was served at 180–190 °F. The coffee was so hot it had given other people 3rd degree burns before this lady had been burnt. People had repeatedly gone to the hospital from burns from the coffee. McDonalds knew this. They didn't cool it down despite their own safety experts telling them it was a danger to customers and despite knowing that they had injured customers.
>If it was really unreasonable, then they and everyone else would not be still selling coffee just as hot or hotter.
McDonalds competitors didn't serve coffee that hot since it was dangerous. During the trial experts actually checked the temperatures of competitors coffee temperatures to show they served coffee around 140 °F.
>I think the concept that the deepest pockets need to pay "compensation" when there is severe injury is a great moral hazard in our society.
You are repeating some very well funded corporate tort reform propaganda campaign aimed at taking away your rights as a citizen to protect their profts.
Every once in a while the "stupid McDonald's woman" story comes up in conversation. I guess I should just keep my mouth shut, but I always feel compelled to defend the woman and fill people in on the details.
The result is that people think that I am stupid, rather than admit that they might be mistaken about something.
One would indeed need to be brainwashed to believe that 140 degrees F is a normal temperature for freshly brewed coffee. According to ANSI standard cm-1-1986 5.2.1:
On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170°?F and 205°?F (77°?C and 96°?C)
The 180 degree F coffee in this case was completely normal. In reports of a subsequent (failed) hot coffee case it was reported that the current McDonalds standard for serving coffee is (still!) 85 °C, plus or minus five degrees.
There were cup holders in Ford Probes.
The expert on thermodynamics for the case testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. This does not "melt flesh" as you say. It is a third degree burn that causes the skin to necrotize. The heat also causes proteins in the body to "clump". The body ends up sloughing it off.
Stella was wearing cotton sweatpants. Cotton has a melting point of 250°. I highly doubt that the coffee served that day was at that temp.
Her burns were severe, but that is not bone in the image. It is most likely silvadene or whatever the burn was dressed with.
This is a graphic burn image - For people wanting to see an image of the burns she received > http://www.prwatch.org/files/images/burn.jpg
Stella's original suit for the amount of $20,000 was yo cover the actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500;
The anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500.
Her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.
She was not suing because she was "going to lose everything.".
Make no mistake; I think big corporations are evil and that they are getting away with way more than they should, but this case would be laughed out of court anywhere else except the USA.
It's also a perfect illustration of the USA state of mind: I'm not to blame, I'm not responsible. It's somebody else's fault.
(Because presumably I'm perfect or I am the customer and the customer is always right.)
And I apologize for saying that someone would have to be brainwashed to believe that 140° was appropriate serving temperature for coffee. That was really directed at the linked article and not at any commenters here. There are undoubtedly some poor home-coffeemakers that do emit coffee at 140° or less, thankfully I have not encountered one in years.
And let me state that I am fully behind the right, if you are injured due to the negligence or defective product of a business, that you should get compensatory damages. You should get punitive damages if they knew or should have known about the problem and did nothing correct it, or else tried to evade their real responsibility.
My problem with this case as it has been written about here is that I don't see any defect or negligence. I see no defect or negligence because 180° to 190° F is completely normal for freshly brewed coffee. 180° is normal because coffee should be brewed near 200° F, and not kept sitting around before it is served.
Accidents happen. They are accidental. Sometimes the costs of those accidents can be astronomical. That does not mean the guy who sold you the hot drink should pay your expenses when you spill it on yourself, even if that 'guy' is a big evil corporation. Because if this were the case, then no-one would take the risk of selling anyone hot drinks.
The boiling temperature will be higher at a lower altitude so I don't see your point..
No one serves boiling coffee. You don't even have to boil water to make coffee anymore. The altitude may make getting water to boil easier up there, but it doesn't make any difference in what temperature scalds the skin.
And frankly, I don't care about what a thermometer said: If a cup of coffee causes third-degree burns, then it is, by definition, unreasonably hot.