The Surprising True Story Behind McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit

Posted by on October 2, 2015 in Agencies & Systems, Government, Policies with 5 Comments

mcdonalds coffeeBy |

In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck became the poster child for frivolous litigation after filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for serving coffee that was too hot.

The public generally ridiculed Liebeck – the media hook was the story of an Albuquerque woman who cleaned up with $2.7 million for spilling coffee on herself. News stations took her to task, late night comedians had a field day.

Related Article: Rand Paul Brings Class-Action Lawsuit Against the NSA

But did any of us really know the details of the story?

With the opening of Ralph Nader’s new American Museum of Tort Law in Winsted, Connecticut, the truth behind some of the more enduring cases of corporate shenanigans are explored. Among histories of exploding Ford Pintos and Joe Camel, the facts behind Liebeck’s case come to light.

As the museum states:

The coffee that burned Stella Liebeck was dangerously hot – hot enough to cause third-degree burns, even through clothes, in three seconds. Liebeck endured third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, including her inner thighs and genitals – the skin was burned away to the layers of muscle and fatty tissue. She had to be hospitalized for eight days, and she required skin grafts and other treatment. Her recovery lasted two years.

Even with all of that pain and agony, Liebeck made an offer to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover costs associated with the injury. McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800. Liebeck pursued the case in court; and not to gouge the fast food giant for cash, but to make a difference.

Related Article: Brain-Damaged Victims of Swine Flu Vaccine Win $63 Million Lawsuit

At home, most coffee makers brew a drink that measures between 135 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit. Some restaurants go a bit hotter, up to 160 F; that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 20 seconds, which gives people enough time to wipe it off before it does too much damage.

“We knew, before the lawsuit was filed, that the temperature of the water was 190 F or so, and the franchise documents required that of the franchisee,” said Kenneth Wagner, a lawyer who represented Liebeck.

700 other people prior to Liebeck had suffered from McDonald’s scalding coffee, yet the company maintained its policy. “The company knew its coffee was causing serious burns,” notes the museum, “but it decided that, with billions of cups served annually, this number of burns was not significant.” Liebeck was concerned about the others who had burned, and especially that the 700 other victims included children.

“Our position was that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the temperature should have been lower,” Wagner said.

Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensation for her pain and medical costs, a figure that was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent responsible. They also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the trial judge reduced to $480,000, even though he called McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The final settlement was even less.

Related Article: 5 Scientific Experts Join Lawsuit to Bring Down Monsanto


Tags: , , , , ,


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

5 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1.' Kamau B. Love says:

    She deserved it!

  2.' Lisa Fox says:

    Indeed it s 2 hot..that s why i tell them 2 put ice cubes 😉

  3.' Cristina Juarez says:

    I took business law in college and SHE DESERVED that money after studying the facts.

  4.' Kim Spex says:

    One photo is more than enough. This woman suffered horrifically, not just physically but emotional from all the public abuse she took until the day she died. Such a horrible shame!

  5.' Danielle Jay Fairley says:

    Mase AB

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use' must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.

Send this to a friend