Like most Americans, you have probably heard about the infamous “McDonald’s hot coffee” case. On its face, you likely think it sounds like a ridiculous lawsuit that launched the era of frivolous lawsuits in which we still live today. Once you know the details, however, you may revise that opinion. On his latest episode of Lawyer Podcast, attorney Paul Reed dives into those details to provide clarity and context to the McDonald’s hot coffee case.In the process, he illustrates how important it is to have an experienced personal injury lawyer on your side who can uncover negligence, build a winning case that holds the at fault party accountable, and secure compensation for an injured victim.
What Really Happened in the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case?
The McDonald’s coffee case began when 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of hot coffee in an Albuquerque McDonald’s drive-through one morning. Stella was a passenger in the vehicle at the time. The driver pulled into a parking space and turned the vehicle off so that Stella could add sugar to her coffee. When Stella opened the lid to add the sugar, the coffee spilled in her lap. Unfortunately, Stella was wearing sweatpants at the time which absorbed the steaming hot liquid instead of repelling it, leading to serious, scalding burns. Stella was whisked away to the nearest emergency room where she was diagnosed with 3rd degree burns on 22 percent of her body, including burns in her crotch area. Those burns required skin graphs which led to Stella spending eight days in the hospital. When Stella was released from the hospital, she notified McDonald’s of her injuries and attempted to negotiate a settlement to cover her physical, emotional, and financial injuries. McDonald’s, however, only offered her $800 to settle her claims against the fast-food giant. Refusing to back down, Stella filed suit against McDonald’s, embarking on the lawsuit we all know as “the McDonald’s hot coffee case” today.
Understanding Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants
A better understanding of the severity and extent of the victim’s injuries in the McDonald’s hot coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants) is only part of the puzzle. To truly gain clarity about the case, you also need a clear picture of the restaurant’s culpability.
Listen to Paul and Jason discuss this case on the LiveFeedReed podcast
During the course of the lawsuit, several shocking revelations turned public sentiment against the popular fast-food restaurant. For example, it turns out that McDonald’s had a corporate policy in place that required franchise owners to serve their coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. For perspective, coffee manufacturers recommend that their coffee be kept at 140–160 degrees Fahrenheit because, at that temperature, it takes an average of 60 seconds before the coffee can cause 3rd degree burns. At 180–190 degrees, it only takes an average of two to seven seconds before the scalding hot liquid causes 3rd degree burns. Moreover, McDonald’s was well aware of the risk their scalding hot coffee posed to customers, admitting during the discovery process that during the preceding ten years they had received over 700 reports of injuries caused by excessively hot coffee. In fact, McDonald’s had already been sued and settled several lawsuits based on hot coffee injuries by the time the Liebeck case was litigated.
At trial, McDonald’s own expert witness testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups served each year and the $1.3 million in profit that the company made each day. A quality assurance manager for McDonald’s also testified that the coffee they served was unfit for human consumption because of the scalding risk, noting that the coffee was so hot it would burn a consumer’s mouth and throat. McDonald’s claimed that consumers purchasing coffee through the drive-through were typically commuters who would not actually drink the coffee until they reached their destination, at which point the coffee would be cooler, providing a justification for serving the coffee at such a high temperature. On cross-examination, however, McDonald’s was forced to admit that their own consumer research indicated that the average consumer drank the coffee immediately upon receipt of the beverage. Ultimately, Stella Liebeck won her case against McDonald’s because it was clear that McDonald’s knowingly and intentionally served their coffee at dangerously high temperatures, creating a serious burn risk for which consumers received no warning.
The Aftermath of the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case
On its face, the “hot coffee” case may sound frivolous; however, the details make it clear that the case was legally and morally justified. Unlike many countries around the world, the U.S. legal system provides an opportunity for injured consumers to hold negligent companies accountable when that negligence causes injury. Along with providing compensation for injured parties, personal injury lawsuits such as the McDonald’s hot coffee case can prevent future injuries by forcing negligent parties to address the hazardous conditions in question. Ironically, McDonald’s continues to serve dangerously hot coffee – but their coffee now comes with a warning alerting consumers to the risks posed by the hot liquid.
If you have questions or concerns about a personal injury lawsuit, contact the experienced personal injury attorneys at Reed & Reed.