S TELLA L IEBECK C ASE – A G OOD R ESULT ? By Elaine M. Deering

W HAT H APPENED ? In February of 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico, visited a drive-through window of a McDonald’s restaurant with her grandson.

W HAT H APPENED N EXT ? Stella’s grandson, the driver of the vehicle, placed the order. When it came, he handed her a forty-nine cent cup of hot coffee, served in a styrofoam cup.

W HAT H APPENED N EXT After receiving the coffee from the drive-through window, the grandson pulled over to allow his grandmother to add cream and sugar to her coffee.

W HAT H APPENED T HEN In attempting to remove the plastic lid, the scaldingly hot coffee spilled into her lap, causing third degree burns to her upper thigh area, including leg, groins, and buttocks—over 6 percent of her body.

I NJURIES S USTAINED Stella was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent numerous skin grafts and sustained permanent scars. When McDonalds's refused to settle the case for $20,000, the grandmother retained an attorney to file charges against McDonald's.

L AWSUIT IS F ILED Liebeck sued McDonald’s for selling coffee that was too hot and for failing to warn her of the danger of the hot coffee it served. McDonald’s rejected Liebeck’s pretrial offer to settle the case for $300,000.

D ISCOVERY During discovery, documents obtained from McDonald¹s showed more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992, including some with third degree burns similar to Stella’s.

I MPLICATIONS This evidence proved that McDonald's knew of the dangers of their product, but disregarded the potential harm to its customers.

T HE T RIAL At trial, McDonald’s denied that it had been negligent and asserted that Liebeck’s own negligence— opening a hot-coffee cup on her lap—caused her injuries.

E VIDENCE The jury heard evidence of McDonald’s quality-control rule that requires its restaurants and franchises to serve coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 10 to 30 degrees hotter than coffee served by competing restaurant chains, and approximately 40 to 50 degrees hotter than normal house-brewed coffee.

O THER F ACTS IN THE C ASE McDonald’s Quality Assurance Manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above. He admitted that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

P LAINTIFF ’ S E XPERT Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in the application of thermodynamics to human skin, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

M C D ONALD ’ S D EFENSE McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company’s own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

T O P UT I T INTO P ERSPECTIVE A McDonald's consultant pointed out that 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

W HAT I S “U NREASONABLY D ANGEROUS ”? The National Coffee Association recommends brewing coffee at "between degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and either drunk "immediately“ or "maintained at degrees Fahrenheit."

O THER A RGUMENTS McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that they did not warn customers of the hazard.

T HE O UTCOME  Based on this evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s acted recklessly and awarded Liebeck $200,000 compensatory damages (reduced by $40,000 for her own negligence), and $2.7 million punitive damages.  The judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful.

P OST -T RIAL N EGOTIATIONS After the Trial Court judge reduced the amount of punitive damages to $480,000, the parties reached an out-of-court secret settlement for an undisclosed amount.

W ARNINGS As a result of this case, McDonald’s and other purveyors of coffee have reduced the temperature at which they sell coffee and have placed warnings on their coffee cups. McDonald’s: “Warning: Contents Hot.” Starbucks: "Careful, the beverage you're about to enjoy is extremely hot.“

C OMMENTS One commentator thinks that the courts have retreated from a reasonable person standard in holding companies liable for product misuse. In this author’s opinion, this case was completely frivolous with no safety benefits whatsoever. Most people would expect hot coffee to be hot.

P UBLIC R EACTION Stella Liebeck has become an American icon. Rightly or wrongly, she is a symbol of the American Tort system gone wrong, and most have heard of her case -- and have an opinion on it.

C ONCLUSION Product liability cases have encouraged manufacturers to design, manufacture and distribute safer products and have rightfully forced these same manufacturers to properly warn consumers of the potential dangers with their products.

R ECOMMENDATIONS In the opinion of another commentator, with the potential for, and increasing numbers of, frivolous lawsuits, something should be done to regulate the current system. This is not to say that society should return to the days of caveat emptor, or “buyer beware,” but rather the system needs to move away from the current trend of “seller beware.”

R EFERENCES ‘ Lectric Law Library. (2010). The actual facts about - the McDonalds‘ coffee case. Retrieved from Stella Awards.com. The real Stella’s case. Retrieved from