The Infamous McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds Coffee

Stella Liebeck (79 yrs. old) was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February of 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonalds. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily, so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. 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. A surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered third-degree burns to over 6% of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital areas. She was hospitalized for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin grafting, and other medical treatments.

Case Details and Controversy

In the aftermath of the incident, Liebeck initially offered to settle her claim for $20,000 based only on the medical costs from the accident, but McDonalds refused. During pre-trial discoveries, it was revealed that McDonalds had prior knowledge about the dangers of their hot coffee, with documents showing over 700 similar burn claims. Moreover, McDonalds maintained its coffee at extremely high temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, despite knowing the risks involved. An expert testified that liquids at 180°F could cause third-degree burns within 7 seconds.

Legal Battle and Outcome

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 due to her 20% fault in the spill, and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge criticized McDonalds' conduct as "reckless, callous, and willful." However, the punitive damages were later reduced to $480,000 on appeal.

Aftermath and Settlement

Post-trial investigations revealed that the coffee temperature at the McDonalds store had been lowered to 158°F. Despite extensive media coverage and public scrutiny, the final settlement amount between Liebeck and McDonalds remains undisclosed.

Questions

1. Do you agree that Stella Lieback was 20% responsible for her injury? Should she be held more/less responsible? Why or why not? 3 marks.
2. The judge called McDonalds conduct "reckless, callous, and willful." Do you agree with this criticism? Why or why not? 2 marks.
3. How much money do you think Stella Lieback should have been awarded? Consider compensatory and punitive damages. Tell me why. 3 marks.
4. In your opinion, what is the significance (if any) of the fact that after the trial the temperature of the coffee was lowered to 158°F? 2 marks.

Answers

1. Stella Liebeck's responsibility: The jury found Stella Liebeck 20% responsible for her injury, as she placed the hot coffee cup between her knees while attempting to remove the lid. Her level of responsibility remains a subjective matter.
2. Judge's criticism of McDonald's conduct: The judge's criticism of McDonald's as "reckless, callous, and willful" is justifiable. McDonald's awareness of the coffee's dangers at high temperatures without taking precautions prioritized taste over customer safety.
3. Compensation for Stella Liebeck: A reasonable compensation approach may include $200,000 for compensatory damages, covering medical expenses and suffering, and a lower punitive award, possibly around $500,000, to deter reckless behavior while acknowledging the seriousness of the issue.
4. Significance of temperature adjustment: Lowering the coffee temperature to 158°F after the trial indicates that McDonald's could have provided a safer product without compromising taste. It emphasizes the company's negligence in maintaining excessively high temperatures and the avoidable nature of severe injuries.