AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT…SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

• As posted by The Center for Justice & Democracy…at www.centerjd.org/  
• McDonald’s Coffee case.  The facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case are as follows10: 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid, but the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her.  She suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring and disability for more than two years.  Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses, but the company refused.  At trial, the jury learned, among other things, that:
  • McDonald’s sold its coffee at 180 Fº to 190 Fº, higher than the industry norm, which if spilled, caused third-degree burns in two to seven seconds, burns that do not heal without extensive treatments which cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability for many months or years;
  • For more than 10 years, McDonald’s knew about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee – with more than 700 people, including children and infants being burned from 1982 to 1992 – a risk leading experts found unacceptable; and
  • The company never warned customers about the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature, could offer no explanation as to why it did not and had no plans to lower the coffee’s temperature when sold.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages – reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault – and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s indifference. The trial judge subsequently reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 and refused to grant a new trial in the case, calling McDonald’s behavior “callous.”  The parties ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount.

Professors Michael McCann and William Haltom “found in a study that the large McDonald’s verdict got extensive front-page coverage in 1994. But only about half the newspapers carried articles when the judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000.”11