Few lawsuits are as famous — or as misunderstood — as the “McDonald’s hot coffee case,” Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. Since it was decided in 1994, it’s been held up as the poster child for “frivolous lawsuits” and “runaway juries.” Many people can’t understand why Stella Liebeck would win at all, let alone be awarded $2.86 million by the jury.
The answer is that most of what people think they know about the case is simply wrong. Let’s compare the myths to the facts.
The plaintiff spilled her coffee while driving through the McDonald’s drive-through.
Mrs. Liebeck wasn’t driving at all. Her grandson, who was driving, had already parked so she could add cream and sugar. When she pulled the lid off, the steaming contents went into her lap.
She really wasn’t hurt that badly.
She suffered second- and third-degree burns over her thighs, buttocks, genitals, and groin — requiring debridement and skin grafting, with severe disfigurement and permanent scarring. She spent eight days in the hospital and incurred $10,500 in medical bills, with more anticipated.
She just wanted to get rich quick off a deep-pocketed corporation.
She just wanted her medical bills paid. She offered to settle for $20,000; McDonald’s offered $800, treating it as a “nuisance settlement.” Only then — needing her out-of-pocket costs covered — did she hire a personal injury lawyer.
McDonald’s was held 100% at fault and she walked away with millions.
The jury found McDonald’s 80% at fault and Mrs. Liebeck 20% at fault. It awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced 20% to $160,000, plus $2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonald’s — which the judge reduced to $480,000, for a total of $640,000. Both sides appealed and ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount, reported to be under $600,000.
McDonald’s did nothing wrong — everyone knows coffee is hot.
McDonald’s had a corporate policy of serving coffee so hot it could cause third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. The company had received more than 700 burn complaints and had previously settled scald claims for over $500,000 — yet testified that the number of prior victims was “statistically trivial,” not enough to justify lowering the temperature, and it had no plans to do so.
The Takeaway
Even knowing the facts, not everyone will agree with the jury’s decision — but now you can form an opinion based on facts instead of myths. And the real lesson stands: a corporation that knowingly endangers its customers can be held accountable.