The Truth About the McDonalds Coffee Case

Perhaps the most well-known "frivolous lawsuit" is the story of Stella Liebeck - the woman who was burned by hot coffee from McDonalds. Here are the facts about the McDonald's lawsuit; decide for yourself if the suit was frivolous:

1: Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old grandmother who was the passenger in her grandson's car.

2: McDonalds served the coffee at roughly 190 degrees. 190 Degree liquid will cause third-degree burns within 2-7 seconds of contact with the skin.

3: Stella was wearing cotton jogging pants, and the 190 degree liquid soaked into the pants. She received third-degree burns to her thighs and genitals. This is what a third-degree burn looks like:

4: McDonalds admitted that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature they served it.

5: Over 700 men, women, and children had been burned prior to Stella's lawsuit.

6: Stella offered to settle with McDonalds just for her medical bills. They refused.

Here is a PDF file that explains the suit in better detail. It's authored by the attorney who won the case. I tried to get permission from him to post this, but he never responded to my e-mails. This didn't surprise me: No one I've ever contacted about tort reform has bothered to respond to my e-mails.

Hopefully, this clears up some of the misconceptions that Stella was a careless woman who spilled some hot coffee on herself and just needed some aloe vera.

The question I have is why didn't the media report about how badly burned and disabled she was? I wonder if it has anything to do with the tens of millions of dollars McDonalds spends on advertising?

Comments

[E. N. Walters, Esq.]

One thing that I don't understand is that the conservatives are arguing for tort reform, while on the same hand they are supposedly the party that champions State's rights... where are the cries of Federalism? Last time I checked 95%+ tort cases were State in origin, why in the hell does the Federal government have any right to tell my State what to do. If West Virginia has a problem keeping OB/GYNs (which I think is propaganda by the way) it is West Virginia's issue to solve. It is amazing about the inconsistencies about the Republican/Conservatives on the issues of State's rights. Be consistent.

[Byron]

I think the woman should have took the whole $500,000. Basically if she took that little amound of money she deserved what happened. But she was right for doing what she did.

[James]

I was just trying to look up bad facts about McDonalds...but WOW! This is HORRIBLE! Just from coffee too... Mcdonalds should pay those medical bills a least... geez....

[Connor]

i am a 7th grade student doing my speech on how bad McDonalds is and this is for sure going in ( that stupid f**king place should have payed for her medical bills!)

[Oliver]

The same burns can happen when spilling hot liquid at home. A car is not precisely the safest environment to consume hot drinks in, and a high temperature of water is required for optimum extraction of flavors from the coffee grind. Why did no one ask to have a chunk of ice dropped into the coffee? Why did no one blow over the surface to cool down the coffee? The article on the one hand suggests the claim of 700 cases in 10 years to be trivial is facetious, on the other hand it cites one billion cups being sold per year. That's 10 billion in ten years. That's one in over 14000 sales resulting in an accident or 0.007%. That's not trivial? Her sitting in that car put her in more danger than that coffee.

When we brew coffee at home, we are sane enough to wait a moment before we sip it. At McDonalds, people also buy coffee to take it across the street, into the building, up to the tenth floor, down the corridor, into their office and then, at their desk, want to drink it. They're glad if it is still hot by then.

[Mark Tisch]

First of all, I question whether Stella's burns were anywhere near as bad as those in your "example" pic.

Secondly, even IF McDonalds was found to be at fault (which I disagree with), one woman and one greedy attorney were not entitled to millions of dollars. We DO need tort reform. If big corporations are found to be guilty of something, and large settlements are decided on, the money should go to society as a whole, or to a charity, or to some other large number of rightful recipients (such as in a class action). And attorney fees should be limited. Only then will we deter greedy (especially the slimy personal injury variety) from chasing cases like this.

[Ted]

* 1: Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old grandmother who was the passenger in her grandson's car.

A: Why is this relevant? Do 79-year-old grandmothers get a different standard of justice?

* 2: McDonalds served the coffee at roughly 190 degrees. 190 Degree liquid will cause third-degree burns within 2-7 seconds of contact with the skin.

* 3: Stella was wearing cotton jogging pants, and the 190 degree liquid soaked into the pants. She received third-degree burns to her thighs and genitals.

A: Yes. Coffee is hot. This is the temperature it is supposed to be served at. (Do you really drink your coffee at 130 degrees, the temperature when it won't burn?) This is why someone drinking coffee should be careful not to spill it on themselves.

It's interesting that you mention the cotton sweatpants -- why is McDonald's any more at fault than the pants manufacturer? After all, hundreds of people have burned themselves because they were wearing cotton instead of a more protective material like Goretex. What's the difference?

* 4: McDonalds admitted that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature they served it.

A: This is irrelevant. Coffee is supposed to be served hotter than it is consumed, because the act of opening the cup cools the temperature several degrees.

* 5: Over 700 men, women, and children had been burned prior to Stella's lawsuit.

A: So what? First, the vast majority of these burns were mild. Second, McDonald's sold several billion cups of coffee--1 in 24 million people suffered any kind of burn at all. That doesn't sound very dangerous to me--after all, one is dozens of times more likely to be hit by lightning, or killed in an auto accident driving to McDonald's.

* 6: Stella offered to settle with McDonalds just for her medical bills. They refused.

A: So what? Why should McDonald's pay anything when it wasn't their fault that Stella spilled coffee on herself? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Q: The question I have is why didn't the media report about how badly burned and disabled she was?

A: Because it wasn't McDonald's fault how badly burned she was? In any event, the Wall Street Journal reported on the case in detail--or are they not the media?

Q: Hopefully, this clears up some of the misconceptions that Stella was a careless woman who spilled some hot coffee on herself

A: Really? What evidence do you have that this isn't an accurate evaluation? Certainly nothing in your post. After all, 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 million people drink McDonald's coffee without burning themselves. (Indeed, an even smaller number than 700 people were victims of self-inflicted burns. McDonald's paid the medical bills of people injured by coffee when it was a McDonald's employee who spilled the coffee.)

More on the McDonald's coffee case on the website overlawyered.com.

[mcdonalds manager]

why should mcdonalds pay up for that womans accident she spilt the coffee mcdonalds should sue her for harassment she is probabily just making it up any way to buy a new walking stick. who does she think she is. god may you have mercy on her sole that little old lier shame one her. how dare she sue my company it is not a very nice thing to do sueing people, you have to go to court and sit in front of pervy judges.

ha ha

In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.In June 2002 the company agreed to pay a $10m settlement to Hindus living in the United States.vv

[i like chips]

i like chips and burgers and pizza and shakes and even more food and even more food and even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more foodand even more food and even more food

[K]

You people who claim that Stella spilt it on herself - read the case before you start spewing! She didn't spill it. McDonald's had been fined for continually serving coffee at a temperature higher than legally allowed. Styrofoam melts at 190 degrees! The cup melted in her lap and there was nothing she could do about it!

Why did McDonald's continue to serve coffee at a temperature in excess of legal limits? Because McDonald's research show that the aroma of coffee travels further when it is at 190 degrees. The further the aroma travels the more coffee they sell.

[Ted]

KI, you haven't "read the case", because it's a jury verdict, not an opinion.

Styrofoam doesn't melt at 190 degrees. That's why only 1 out of 24 million McDonald's customers burned themselves on coffee. Not even the plaintiffs claim anything other than that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself.

McDonald's brews coffee at 190 degrees because coffee is supposed to be brewed between 190 and 205 degrees.

[Ted Frank]

McDonald's coffee on Overlawyered:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000152.php
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001394.html
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001397.html
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/02/mar3.html#0329a
http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html#000718b

[Theresa]

At some point people are going to have to take responsibility for their own actions. The burn was severe no one disputes that, but what was she doing at the time of the spill? It is a no brainer that coffee is hot. An accident doesn't mean someone should have to pay....take responsibility people who knows you might be sued next, better serve warm coffee and not take the chance.

[Kristen]

WOW!!!! I haven't seen this picture. That is so sad. I am doing a science project about coffee and scald burns. The McDonalds case was one of my top sources. I also looked at Starbucks, I inter viewed the manager:

Q:How much do you fill up the cup?

A:"About 1/4 inch from the top."

Q: What temperature do you serve your coffee?

A: "Oh, about 160-170 degrees farenheight."

If they can serve it at 170 degrees farenheight to a customer. The same results can happen. It just takes a little longer to get a 3rd degree burn from the spill.

And to another note, It was Stella's fault that she was carring it in between her legs. The outside of the cup cant total block the temperature. She probally could have felt the warm in between her legs. That is just not paying attention.

[Alan]

you know, im a grade 7th doing a debate wether or not to ban mcdonalds. This info is perfect! But i still wonder why they sold that hot of coffee when they could be sued if those people accidently spilled it.

[josh]

ok,

although I agree with most of you, but take a look at the case info. The jury did dock her 20k for her own negligence. Macdonalds admitted they knew about previous burn cases and just about everything else yet they did nothing to stop it. The damages awarded were punitive to keep macdonalds from burning people again.

as far as starbucks, I think 170 degrees will burn and fast. But maybe the margin of error is sufficient to provide relief in the case of a spill. 190 degrees will burn on contact (1-2 seconds) so that provides no margin of error. I think she should have recieved all the settlement she was awarded for the simple fact that macdonalds should have forseen this incident..especially after other people burned themselves. Juries look at facts, the facts in the case are pretty evident. I would have come to the same conclusion they did

[jen]

she probly didnt know it was that hot we need to have grace on older people ! did it even say it was that it was really hot or 190 degrees?you guys should be nice not making fun of her or saying she did it for money or other stuff. its like making fun of your grandma or mom

[Chris]

This case is crazy. Did you know that Mcdonalds had received 141 citations before this case because of having water that exceeded regulations. They said that one of their biggest target audiences was truck drivers. Truck drivers want coffee insanely hot so it will stay hot longer on drives. I guess when you weigh sales w/ punitive damages though, they aren't gonna be serving any more 190 degree coffees.

I am doing REPORT ON mCdONlds, this reLLY HELP, THnx

[christina ross]

mc donalds .... tell me have any of you NOT seen a mc donalds ad in your life? this company is corrupt their advertising themselves EVERYWHERE i mean they signed an advertising deal with neopets as soon as neopets reached over 1 million users ( my username happens to be slovakutoo by the way) and this sucks!! i could ignore the fat content but the working conditions!!!!!
im not allowed mc donalds ever since my dad read Fast food nation and im glad!!!

[jukes]

ello , im doing school power point project this site really helped thx :)

[Andrew Axsom]

Guys, Read the facts that were posted. Now re-read them.

The Bottle line here is the same as the bottomline with smokers suing since they get lung cancer.

Mcdonalds sold Mrs. Liebeck a product. It was her responsibility to use judgement in deciding how to use that product. Mcdonalds was NOT responsible for how she used her property. She having already paid for it - it was her property.

She spilled it. That, my friends, is the bottomline.

[Ted]

"Did you know that Mcdonalds had received 141 citations before this case because of having water that exceeded regulations?"

No, I didn'tbecause it's not true. There are no "regulations" regarding hot water.