We will soon be reaching the 25th anniversary of perhaps the most infamous personal injury litigation of the modern era “Liebeck v. McDonald’s,” more commonly known as the ‘hot coffee’ case.
The Liebeck case, and the subsequent verdict, touched off a call for massive ‘tort reform’. Even to this date, defense attorneys often raise that case during jury selection to suggest to jurors the risk of excessive verdicts. However, it is worth revisiting that case and exploring some misconceptions about that case and its aftermath.
“Liebeck v. McDonald’s” – The Hot Coffee Lawsuit
In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck and her grandson rode through a McDonald’s drive-through window in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Ms.Liebeck, who was seated in the passenger seat, ordered a coffee, placed it in her lap, and removed the lid to add cream and sugar. When she did so, coffee spilled onto her lap, causing extensive third-degree burns. She subsequently filed a claim against McDonald’s, maintaining that the coffee was served at improperly high temperatures. Her case proceeded to trial, and in 1994, she was awarded a verdict of 2.9 million dollars by a jury.
A massive public outcry for tort reform followed that verdict, complaining that the claim was frivolous and the verdict was excessive, claiming that Ms. Liebeck should have been held responsible for her own personal ‘contributory negligence’, and demanding caps on damages and limitations on lawsuits.
However, what received little press was the actual proof that that jury heard.
The proof in that case reflected that McDonald’s had, in fact, received over 700 complaints over the past ten years that their coffee had been responsible for causing prior burns, but that the chain had not taken any steps to reduce the temperature. Tests reflected that coffee brewed at home is approximately 135 degrees; in contrast, the coffee served at the chain was an incredible 185 degrees.
Experts demonstrated that at that temperature, the coffee could cause a third-degree burn in several seconds. The jury actually only awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 for compensatory damages. The vast majority of the verdict was actually for punitive damages, which the jury assessed after hearing the proof that McDonald’s had failed to make changes after repeated complaints. (Following an appeal, the verdict was eventually reduced to less than $500,000.) It is also worth noting that that jury did place some responsibility upon Ms. Liebeck, and assessed her with 20% of the total comparative liability.
Lasting Results and Outcomes of the Hot Coffee Lawsuit
Despite its notoriety, the Hot Coffee case verdict did ultimately lead to some helpful consumer protections.
Many stores have reduced the temperatures at which they serve coffee, and the industry now tends to use stronger cups and to provide more strongly-worded warnings.
The case also served as a valuable ‘wake-up’ call to vendors and manufacturers that a refusal to respond to consumers complaints can often have disastrous consequences.
Burned or Injured By the Negligence of a Food Vendor? Our Team Can Help!
If you or a loved one has suffered from a personal injury in Upstate NY due to the negligence of another party, it is in your best interest to contact Maynard, O’Connor, Smith & Catalinotto as soon as possible. As experienced NY personal injury attorneys, we know what it takes to get you the compensation you are entitled to after you have been injured in an accident that was entirely or partially someone else’s fault.
The time following an injury can be difficult, but you don’t have to struggle through it alone. Our team of personal injury lawyers is here to guide you through the challenges you are facing.
If you think you may have a personal injury case on your hands, please give us a call today at (800) 721-3553 or contact us online for a free consultation.
