Anything can actually happen over a cup of Coffee!!! Lieback vs McDonald’s Case

In the year 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman and a resident of New Mexico , spilled the coffee served by McDonald’s in her lap and was severely burned. Liebeck sued McDonald’s for serving coffee at an insanely high temperature for which she was unfairly held up as an example of frivolous litigation in the public eye. 2 years later, Liebeck was awarded $2.9 million in damages by a New Mexican Jury!!!

What made the jury announce the result in her favour??

Let us deep dive into some important facts and Figures of the details related to the case:

Q1. How severe was Liebeck’s condition?

According to sources –

1. Liebeck had suffered third degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from McDonald’s restaurant
2. Liebeck was then taken to hospital which had determined that she had suffered third degree burns on six percent of her skin ad lesser burns over sixteen percent.
3. Liebeck remained in hospital for over eight days where she underwent skin grafting
4. Liebeck lost nearly 20 pounds during this period.
5. After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed proper three weeks of care ( provided by her daughter).
6. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after this incident and she was also partially disabled for two years.

Q2.  What was the case against McDonald’s?

Liebeck sued McDonald’s claiming that McDonald’s coffee was too hot than any other establishment and more likely to cause serious injury. Liebeck’s attorney argued that McDonald used to serve coffee at 180-190 degree Fahrenheit ( 82 -88 degree Celsius) which is too hot to be served to a customer and can lead to accidents if spilled over. Liebeck’s Attorney stated that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degree Fahrenheit (60 degree Celsius) and other establishments serve coffee atleast 20 degree Fahrenheit lower than McDonald’s

Liebeck’s lawyers also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 3 seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck’s attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.

Q3.  What was McDonald’s counter argument?

McDonald’s claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

Q4.  What were the evidences presented during Trial?

• It came to light that McDonald’s had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
• Other documents obtained from McDonald’s showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald’s coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
• McDonald’s quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about.
• The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald’s coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

Q5.  What was the final verdict?

18^th August,1994 a twelve- person jury reached its verdict .

• Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault.
• Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.
• They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages.
• The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan’s suggestion to penalize McDonald’s for one or two days’ worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.
• The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000.
• The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

Q6.  What are the laws in India related to Negligence – Comparative and Contributory?

• Indian Courts recognise the concept of contributory negligence as – “The rule of negligence with the defence of contributory negligence holds an injurer liable if and only if he was negligent and the victim was not. In India, this rule requires proportional sharing of liability when both parties were negligent”. This is also called as Tort Law in India.
• Whereas Comparative negligence seeks to compensate the injured party atleast for some part of his or her injuries. So the loss occurred due to comparative negligence should be shared by both equally.

So what do you think about this case? This case was considered as an example of “frivolous litigation” by many. ABC news had called this case as “the poster child of excessive lawsuits” while Jonathan Turley had called this case “a meaningful and worthy lawsuit”.  McDonald’s asserts that the outcome of this case was a fluke and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise.

Liebeck’s attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald’s reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although it is not clear whether McDonald’s in fact had done so.

However, coming to today we all love McDonald’s. Some news come and go but the interesting part is even a serving like coffee if not done appropriately can cost company a million!!!

However, if you find this case interesting, you can watch the detailed story about tort reform in a documentary called as Hot Coffee premiered by HBO!

Thank you!

Nibedita Shome

Source – Wikipedia