The Difference Between Hot And Too Hot
As noted, the coffee served to Stella Liebeck was somewhere between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. According to a study examining the optimal temperatures for serving hot beverages, “Brief exposures to liquids in this temperature range can cause significant scald burns.” While coffee does need to be brewed at high temperatures , serving temperatures should not exceed 165 degrees, while surveys find the ideal temperature for consuming a hot drink to be 136 degrees on average, according to the same study.6254a4d1642c605c54bf1cab17d50f1e
The Albuquerque Hot Coffee Case Heard Around The World
Of the hundreds of thousands of McDonald’s drive-thrus throughout the world, it’s unlikely there is one more famous and steeped with controversy than the one located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. in Albuquerque, New Mexico . And Even if you don’t recognize the location, it’s very likely you’ve heard the stories–almost all of them filled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and outright lies–about what happened here.
It was February 27, 1992 when a 79-year-old grandmother named Stella Liebeck would accidentally spill a portion of her McDonald’s take-out coffee on herself. She sued McDonalds and was awarded nearly $3 million in punitive damages. Soon after she would be portrayed in a large number of media circles as “greedy,””clumsy,””an example of what’s wrong with our country,” and “a complete joke.” To this day, many people still hold those insults to be true, leaving them to serve as her lasting legacy.
As unflattering news stories continued to mount, and big corporations worked to re-write the facts, a rally cry for tort reform echoed across the country. Soon, personal injury lawyers everywhere were forced to defend themselves from a carefully orchestrated witch hunt that further solidified peoples’ stereotypes of attorneys as “ambulance-chasers.”
Here are some common opinions followed by things no one probably told you.
“It’s her own fault, trying to drive and drink her coffee at the same time.”
Maybe there’s an argument there, but that’s not what happened.
Liebeck V Mcdonalds: How A Misunderstood Verdict Could Impact Your Next Case
She has been negligent in handling the cup of coffee, which a normal person would always believed to be hot and can cause injury even without actually knowing its actual temperature. Past experiences should have been enough to encourage the company to do something with their hot coffee in order to avoid future similar incidents. When facing litigation for hot beverage spills and burns, contact us to discuss your case and learn how we can strengthen your defense with expertise in science, chemistry, and best practices for preparing and serving hot beverages. Capital University Law Review. The case was considered frivolous and became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform Lexis-Nexis, 2008.
You May Like: Caffeine Solution From The Ordinary
Has Anyone Won A Trial Representing Themselves
The pants he took to the cleaners were grey in color and were unique in that they had a succession of three belt loops, very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants Lexis-Nexis, 2008. McDonalds then released PR campaigns defending the company and making Stella Liebeck seem like a litigious lunatic. She has been negligent in handling the cup of coffee, which a normal person would always believed to be hot and can cause injury even without actually knowing its actual temperature. In reality, her grandson was driving, with Liebeck in the passenger seat. Liebeck became a pariah in the court of public opinion, and was widely reviled until her death in 2004.
Two New Cases In Texas
McDonald’s is currently facing new lawsuits that are quite comparable to that seminal case. The company and one of its San Antonio, Texas franchisees are facing two hot coffee spill lawsuits in Bexar County, according to KSAT. The first suit was filed on October 5 and relates to an incident that occurred in 2019, when a cup of coffee handed through a drive-thru window spilled on a woman’s lap and caused “serious and permanent injuries.” The second lawsuit, filed days later, relates to an incident from 2020, in which another cup of coffee passed from a different drive-thru window also spilled and resulted in second-degree burns. The plaintiff in the first suit is seeking $250,000 in damages, while the plaintiff in the latter seeks $1 million, according to Law and Crime, and both have cited loosely fitted lids as the culprits for the spills.
Don’t Miss: Can Decaf Coffee Cause Constipation
Personal Injury Vs Product Liability
Two types of legal claims can arise from injuries caused by defective products: personal injury and product liability. Personal injury claims are based on the theory of negligence, while product liability claims are based on the idea of strict liability.
Personal injury claims require the injured person to prove that the manufacturer or seller of the defective product was negligent. To succeed on a personal injury claim, the injured person must show that the manufacturer or seller knew or should have known about the defect and failed to take steps to correct it.
Product liability claims, on the other hand, do not require the injured person to prove negligence. Instead, the injured person only needs to show that the defective product caused the injury. Product liability claims can be based on one of three theories: design defects, manufacturing defects, or marketing defects.
Personal injury lawsuits and product liability cases sometimes go together. A plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit may have been injured due to the negligence of another, but not necessarily due to a faulty product. In a product liability case, on the other hand, the injured party was hurt directly due to a defective product. Although the McDonalds coffee lawsuit may seem like a personal injury lawsuit, the jury ultimately determined that the coffee was defective.
The Facts Of The Case
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old widow, was in the passenger seat of her grandsons Ford Probe ordering a Value Meal at the drive-through window of an Albuquerque, New Mexico, McDonalds. Since there were no cup holders in the Probe and the interior surfaces were sloped, her grandson, Christopher Tiano, pulled into a parking spot after they got their order.
I wanted to take the top off the coffee to put cream and sugar in, Liebeck told a local news station at the time. So I put the cup between my knees to steady it to get the top off.
And after that, says Tiano, she started screaming.
The coffee spilled on Liebecks lap, resulting in second- and third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body. She went into shock and was hospitalized for a week, undergoing numerous skin graft operations.
Im a nurse, and I was horrified by the type of injuries that she had sustained, said Liebecks daughter-in-law, Barbara Liebeck. Find the facts of the hot coffee lawsuit interesting? Learn about 10 scandals that rocked the fast-food industry.
Don’t Miss: Does Alka Seltzer Have Caffeine
Mcdonalds Reacts To Coffee Lawsuit
McDonalds initially announced that it would review its procedures in response to the coffee lawsuit. Following this, the company announced that the temperature of their coffee would be changed. As a result, the warning was larger on the coffee cup. Despite this, Liebeck was awarded a punitive damage award of $2 million after the jury determined that the warning was insufficient.
What Really Went Down In The Mcdonald’s Hot Coffee Case
Liebeck was taken to the hospital after the incident, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her skin and lesser burns over 16%. It is easy enough to find photographs of the burns to Ms. Liebecks legs and groin area online, but I must warn you that these photographs are graphic and are not for the weak of heart.
She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds , reducing her to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed this terrible ordeal.
On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems titled Hot Coffee. The documentary is very informative and intriguing. I would encourage anyone reading this article to view it and form their own judgment. The documentary is available for free on amazon prime. You can see the trailer here.
During the trial it was revealed that McDonalds knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonalds will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.
Recommended Reading: Does Thrive Have Caffeine In It
Want More Content Like This Subscribe To Our Email List
Coffee that other restaurants serve at 160 degrees can also cause third-degree burns, but it takes 20 seconds, which usually gives the person enough time to wipe away the coffee before that happens.
Our position was that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the temperature should have been lower, Wagner said.
The jurors awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her pain, suffering, and medical costs, but those damages were reduced to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent responsible. They awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amounted to about two days of revenue for McDonalds coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, while noting that McDonalds behavior had been willful, wanton, and reckless. The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000.
Liebecks case got picked up by the media, and the story that got relayed was sometimes distilled to little more than: A woman made $2.7 million by spilling coffee on herself. The case became a punch line for late-night comedians and on Seinfeld.
Consumer advocates say the distorted narrative picked up speed because business interests and some lawmakers used it as a way to create a public belief that frivolous lawsuits were common and that jury verdicts were running amok, all in an effort to advance a tort reform agenda that limits consumers ability to hold wrongdoers accountable.
Other Harmful Fast Food Drink Mistakes
Its not just McDonalds that has a history of serving up dangerous drinks. Earlier this year, a Starbucks customer took a swig of their coffee only to discover the cup was filled with a cleaning solution called Urnex Urn & Brewer Cleaner. In that case, the customer was seeking $75,000 in damages, and the incident seemed to be caused because a new worker was not yet up to speed on how the cleaning solution in the coffee urns worked.
In another instance, Cracker Barrel was ordered to pay a customer $9.4 million in damages for serving a man a glass of what he assumed was ice water but was actually Eco-San, another cleaning solution. Cracker Barrel made a public statement of disapproval following the verdict, seemingly trying to get another victim-blaming narrative going a la Liebeck v. McDonalds. But when a chain restaurant literally poisons someone, its hard to be on the side of the business.
Whenever such a legal case comes to light, it might be tempting to dismiss it as a frivolous money grab. But really, its about keeping brands accountable for dangerous behavior and making sure these mistakes dont happen again. If you see something thats not quite right in your cup, say something. You could be helping future fast food customers from getting burned .
Recommended Reading: How To Clean Out Coffee Maker With Vinegar
Mcdonald’s Hot Coffee Case: The Facts
In order to separate facts from the myths surrounding this infamous case, we’ve provided some of the key undisputed facts shared at trial.
Company Policy on Coffee Temperature
McDonald’s coffee was served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald’s had long known that this was 20 to 30 degrees hotter than the coffee served at most other restaurants in fact, this temperature range was indicated in its operations manual. In the 10 years before the case, more than 700 people who were scalded by coffee burns made claims against the company. But McDonald’s never lowered the temperature of its coffee.
How the Coffee Actually Spilled
The plaintiff in the case was 79-year-old Stella Liebeck. How her spill unfolded is widely misunderstood — she was not driving a car when she was injured. In fact, she was not driving at all.
She had gone with her grandson, Chris, to take her son to the airport. On the way home, Chris pulled into a McDonald’s drive-thru for breakfast. He parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
Because the car had no cup holders and a slanted dashboard, Stella Liebeck put the cup between her knees and removed the lid. As she did so, the slick Styrofoam cup flipped backward, dumping the scalding liquid onto her lap and saturating the cotton sweat suit she was wearing.
Initial Request for Coverage of Medical Expenses
McDonald’s Knew the Coffee was Dangerously Hot
McDonald’s Refused to Pay Liebeck More Than $800
There’s A Reason Why Mcdonald’s Keeps Its Coffee Scalding Hot
One of the recent McDonald’s lawsuits says the chain was negligent in handling hot coffee. In particular, the chain is being held responsible for “failing to properly handle hot materials when delivering to customers, failing to maintain liquids at a temperature that would protect customers from suffering burns, failing to train employees in handling hot liquids, and failing to act as a reasonable person using ordinary care in the same or similar circumstance,” according to KSAT.
Turns out, McDonald’s has something to gain by keeping its coffee at scalding temperatures: the hotter coffee seems fresher, especially to people with long commutes. It remains to be seen whether the new lawsuits can finally bring about meaningful change in the way McDonald’s serves its coffee.
For more, check out the 108 Most Popular Sodas Ranked By How Toxic They Are.
Eat This, Not That!
Read Also: Is Coffee Good For Asthma Patients
This New Case Reminds Us That The Original Mcdonald’s Coffee Lawsuit Wasn’t As It Seemed
Unfortunately, we have yet another reason to double-check our coffee cups before taking a sip. Insider reports that a woman in Alabama has filed a $13 million lawsuit against McDonalds after she was served a cup of coffee containing harmful chemicals that damaged her throat and organs. According to the woman, after she realized that what she had consumed was in fact chemicals, McDonalds staff refused to let her see the label on the chemical bottle or call 911 on her behalf. The lawsuit alleges that even after the woman called 911 herself, the workers refused to let emergency responders see the bottle.
While it has not yet been determined whether this woman will be awarded the damages shes seeking from McDonalds, theres precedent for McDonalds to make huge payouts for drink-related mistakes. The lawsuit listed a series of other instances of chemicals making their way into McDonalds lattes, iced tea, hot chocolate, and soda. And of course the original McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit is one of historys most famouseven though people often get the details wrong.
A Real Issue Or Tort Reform Propaganda
We have all heard the McDonald’s hot coffee case story about the greedy, old lady who got rich suing McDonalds for her coffee being too hot. Doesnt everyone know that coffee is hot? How can we allow a person to get rich from such a stupid and frivolous lawsuit? How stupid is it that McDonalds has to put a warning label on their cups that their coffee is hot? You can either read further to know the rest of the story or continue to accept the tort reform propaganda that corporate America has pushed down our throats?
Also Check: How Is 8 O Clock Coffee Decaffeinated
Did The Court System Work As It Should Have In The Mcdonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit
After the trial, it was found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to a relatively safe 158 degrees Fahrenheit. This proves that lawsuits like the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit are the only effective mechanism that forces companies to produce safe products.
The real story shows that the court system works. The jury reduced the verdict for the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. The jury felt that McDonalds actions were so disgusting and heinous that they awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonalds in an effort to stop this kind of callousness. The judge felt that this was too much and reduced McDonalds punishment to only $480,000.
Reductions of jury awards are a very little-known fact. Judges have the power to reduce a jury award, and they frequently do. Judges reduce awards whenever they feel the jury awarded too much however, the media never, never reports the reduced awards. They only report the original verdict because, after all, the headline $480,000 punitive award to McDonalds burn victim doesnt sell as well as a $2.7 million punitive award to McDonalds burn victim! This is misleading hype journalism, of which John Stossel is also guilty.
John Stossel and most other reporters frequently reran the McDonalds Coffee Case story but have never reported the fact that:
I Heard About That Lady Who Received Millions Of Dollars From Mcdonalds After She Spilled Hot Coffee On Herself Wasn’t That An Example Of An Outrageous Jury Award
Of all of the “infamous” cases of the jury system gone crazy, the McDonalds “hot coffee” case must rank number one.
Every time I hear the topic brought up, those discussing it talk about the “millions” some lady got because she spilled coffee on herself while driving her car. It is cited as an example of someone else ripping off the system and of someone not accepting personal responsibility for their actions.
Jurors come into court today not wanting to be “fooled” like that jury in the McDonalds case. The truth about this case is rarely told and certainly has not been reported in the media. The reason for the failure to accurately report the case is undoubtedly because McDonalds is such a heavy hitter, advertising-wise. The case never would have gotten so far had McDonalds accepted responsibility for its decision to put profits in front of safety. When the McDonalds jury first heard what the case was about, they thought it was silly. It was not until McDonalds executives testified that the jury got angry with the indifferent attitude of this huge corporation.
McDonalds has since lowered the temperature of its coffee to acceptable levels! Sounds a little different from the way it is portrayed in insurance company advertising, doesnt it?
Read Also: How To Grow Coffee Beans