Summary: Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Case

The 1994 civil case of Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman from Albuquerque New Mexico, versus McDonald’s, a successful billion dollar corporation, is that of controversy and misunderstanding. In 1992, Stella and her grandson went through a McDonald’s drive through for breakfast. Stella got a cup of coffee in a styrofoam cup with her food. Her grandson pulled out from the drive through and stopped the car so Stella could put cream and sugar into her coffee. Because there was no cup holders in the car, Stella placed the coffee in between her legs and tried to pry the plastic lid off the cup. When removing the lid, the cup spilled all over her lap. The pants Liebeck was wearing soaked up the liquid, then began burning her skin. She got 3rd degree burns from the hot coffee within a matter of seconds. She ended up spending eight days in the hospital where she endured an expensive and painful treatment.
Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff of the case, claimed McDonald’s, the defendant, held their coffee at too high of a temperature, 180 to 190 degrees, which could cause 3rd degree burns

in three to seven seconds. McDonald’s additionally provided a poorly designed styrofoam container for the coffee where there were no warnings on the cup about the high temperature of the contents. Due to this civil law violation, Lieback wrote a letter, asking to settle the case for $20,000 to cover lost income and medical bills. She then decided to take McDonalds to trial because they only offered $800 to her.
To defend itself, McDonald's said that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself. McDonald’s did not drop a cup of coffee on her lap. They also said the temperature of the coffee keeps the best taste and customers prefer their coffee extremely hot. Furthermore, the corporation displayed 700 claims by people burned by its coffee within a ten year time span, 1982 to 1992. They had a human factors engineer Dr P. Robert Knaff testify that the 700 people are “statistically insignificant” the the millions of cups of coffee they sell a day. McDonald’s is nothing special when it comes to coffee temperatures they claimed; other company’s cups of coffee would also result in third degree burns. Using another testimony, they attempted to point out that even if the temperature of the coffee was lower Stella would still receive third degree burns. In essence the corporation claimed it was Liebeck's fault for placing the cup between her legs and by not removing her sweatpants right after spilling the coffee. In response to this comment about removing the clothing in time Dr. Charles Baxter testified for Liebeck, claiming coffee should not be consumed at 180, rather at 155 to 160. That way if the coffee spills, there would be more time to react and remove the clothing. For the defensive side Dr. Turner Osler said that even if the coffee was at 130 degrees it would still result in 3rd degree burns.
The plaintiff received disturbing burns over 16% of her body, 6% of which were third degree on her upper leg, butt and groin.

To heal these burns she braved skin grafting and debridement operations. She was mutilated and disabled for two years after the spill. Fortunately Stella recovered, but she still had to live with the discomfort from the burns. Her injuries caused “physical pain, mental pain and anguish, and loss of life’s enjoyment during the pendency of treatment”. The burns ended up costing a pretty penny, about $10,500 for treatment, and to fully recover she spent another $2,500, totaling $12,500. On top of that Stella lost a year's worth of work, amounting to $5,000 of lost income. (I did a bit of calculations, this case began in 1992. If inflation is considered, the medical total of $12,500 today would be the equivalent to about $21,000 according to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics)
The court decided in the case of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s that the plaintiff, Ms. Liebeck, would win, and receive $640,000. The jury came to the decision that it was 20% her fault and 80% McDonald’s. Originally, the Jury wanted McDonald’s to pay Liebeck $160,000 for compensation damages and 2.7 million, two days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, in punitive damages due to McDonalds callous disregard of the 700 customers burned by their unreasonable hot coffee. The judge corrected these numbers and came to the amount of $640,000. This decision was temporary, as there was an appeal where Judge Scott ordered McDonald’s and Lieback to come to a settlement less than $600,000 which remains confidential.
When I first heard of the Liebeck vs. McDonald’s case, like with public policy or what most of the population believes about this case, I laughed. Before knowing the full story I was under the impression that this elderly woman spilled a cup of coffee and became a millionaire. As the facts started to come together my opinion of the outcome altered. Now I believe the overruling of the 700 precedent cases was justified, in this civil case Ms. Liebeck was looking to receive medical reimbursement, but yet McDonald’s was arrogant. They offered a mere $800 to her, which is an insult. Therefore the punitive damages were justified. Also, McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably hot, and it was necessary to create a preventive law with a lowered coffee temperature standard for restaurants. I am not sure if altogether the case settlement of $600,000 was the correct number, as I felt that is a large sum of money. Yet with the attitude McDonald’s presented, anything lower would be the equivalent to a mere penny in their bank.