More About McDonalds

It turns out that the most popular way people find this site is searching for something about Stella Liebeck and her McDonald's coffee case. Here is the last article I wrote about Stella. Since then, I've written a little more about her case for a newsletter I'm putting together for Students Against Tort reform. What follows is the article from the newsletter:

The poster-child of tort reformers is the famed “McDonald’s Coffee Case” - the case where a woman obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for spilling hot coffee on herself. Most people think that a careless woman spilled some hot coffee on herself while driving, received minor burns, and then filed a lawsuit. That’s not what happened. Here's what did happen:

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother, was the passenger in her grandson’s vehicle and ordered a cup of McDonald’s coffee. McDonald’s served the coffee at approximately 190 degrees. McDonald’s admitted coffee at that temperature is “unfit for human consumption”; 190 degree liquid causes third-degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds of contact with skin.

Stella spilled the coffee on the crotch of her cotton jogging pants, and the coffee immediately soaked through her pants and caused third-degree burns to her legs, thighs, and genitals. The burns were so severe she needed skin grafts to heal the damage. It took many months for her to recover from the severe burns.

Stella offered to settle the case with McDonald’s if they would just pay her medical bills, which were into the many thousands of dollars. McDonalds refused, and Stella filed a lawsuit. During the trial, it was discovered that in the ten years prior to Stella’s accident, over 700 men, women, and children had been burned by the unsafe McDonald’s coffee.

For years, McDonald’s sold coffee that was “unfit for human consumption”, and made $1.3 million dollars a day in profit doing so. Information such as this wasn’t really reported by the media. What was reported was the $2.6 million dollar jury verdict.

The jury arrived at that figure by calculating the profit of two-days worth of coffee sales, and “fining” McDonald’s that amount to get their attention and make them fix the problem.

It worked. The day after the verdict, McDonald’s lowered the coffee temperature to a safe-but-hot 158 degrees. This is still hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but it takes closer to sixty seconds worth of exposure to do so.

Many believe that $2.6 million dollars was too much money. The judge in the case did, and he reduced the verdict to less than $500,000. Stella actually settled with McDonald’s for even less money. It took a multimillion dollar jury verdict to get McDonald’s to fix a dangerous problem they knew about for ten years; doesn’t that prove the system works?

Comments

Its your fault if you spill you coffee on yourself maybe people should just be more cafefull about what they choose to drink and when they choose to drink it i know i like the coffee better when it was hotter

[iAN]

i LOVE MCDONALDS
PLESLEW SEND ME FREE FOOD IF U DONT THAT WOULD BE UNCOOL

[sarah fox]

i think its the womans fault personally and the comment above is pretty sad sarah x

[sarah fox]

i think its the womans fault personally and the comment above is pretty sad sarah x

[danielle asquith]

its her own fault

[Colin- devil's advocate]

If McDonalds 'deserved' to be sued for serving coffee too hot then does this mean everywhere on the planet that serves hot coffee/other hot drinks/hot food should be subject to rigorous beverage temperature laws? If the cafe down the road owned by an old couple serves me coffee and then i spill it on myself and it burns me should i sue the pants off them? If my mum gives me an 190 degree apple pie which i spill on myself should i sue my own mother out of house and home? Big corporations do nasty things and they dont give a **** about the individual consumer. This is fact and it aint changing anytime soon. why would they? But if i choke on a Big Mac should i sue too? Is it really THEIR fault? If i drive my car into a ditch should i sue Ford? If i climb inside my own freezer and sit there until i get severe frostbite should i sue Zanussi? I know im oversimplifying and exaggerating, but i just want to make the point that McDonalds probably isn't the only place in the world that serves coffee that would burn you if you spill it on you. Would Stella have sued her local cafe if the same happened there? I don't think so, But McDonalds is 'ok' to sue, because it is a)faceless, b)'evil' and c)very rich.
surely its common sense to NOT spill coffee on yourself. No? Big corporations do need regulating and, often, punishment. But not just for being a big corporation.

[TJ]

While I agree that simply because a corporation has a lot of money they should not be targeted, what would the alternative have been for Mrs Liebeck? Pay the bills herself because it isn't fair to expect a company that makes a $1.3 million dollar profit from selling a product they KNOW is unsafe for human consumption to step up to the plate? It is time that multi-million dollar corporations started taking some responsibility for their actions! Colin (above) asked whether 'everywhere on the planet that serves hot coffee/other hot drinks/hot food should be subject to rigorous beverage temperature laws?' My answer? YES ABSOLUTELY! The public pay good money for the product they purchase (note the daily profit for MD coffee sales if in any doubt), and should not be sold something that can cause 3rd degree burns if spilt. While Mrs Liebeck may have spilt the coffee, surely this is a reasonably forseeable event when selling 190 degree coffee with ill-fitting lids at a drive-through? That being the case, they had a responsibility to ensure that if such an event occured, it would not typically cause the damage that it did. If all the advocates and litigants of the world had the attitude 'Big corporations do nasty things and they dont give a **** about the individual consumer. This is fact and it aint changing anytime soon. why would they?' actions such as serving 190 degree coffee unfit for human consumption, would continue, and the shareholders and CEO's of corporations such McDonalds would grow richer and richer off individual misfortunes. Thank God juries around the world are finally stepping up the to plate and making these corporations take some personal responsibility!!

[Joe Blow]

Get a real life! Better yet sue your parents for not giving you a real life, then sue the gov't for not forcing your parents to give you a real life, then sue all lawyers for not already suing the Gov't and your parents for not giving you a real life, then sue you all at Corpreform.com for not rousing up enough people to sue the gov't and your parents for not giving you a real life and last but not least sue yourself for being too stupid to get yourself a real life!

[SheaNC]

Just wait until it happens to you, Joe Blow

[Ted]

McDonald's hasn't lowered the temperature of their coffee. And Starbucks serves their coffee at the same 190-degree temperature. Nor should they: the ANSI standards recommend that coffee be brewed at an even higher temperature. Stella Liebeck's lawyer was just in the paper suing Starbucks for the rare 1-in-dozens-of-million cases when someone is careless enough to spill coffee on themselves.

Most judges throw out these coffee lawsuits as meritless. See, for example, McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic, which is discussed on overlawyered.com.

[Bill Lawson]

Unmentioned in all of this is the fact that the coffee was so hot that it compromised the integrity of the cup. The cup collapsed- popping off its top which was required to maintain its structural integrity. It became a gusher of hot coffee.

Its hard to believe how effective McDonalds and others have been in spending hundred of millions of dollars in media expenses to use this case to control the minds of Americans to support tort deform. Tort deform means taking away the security of real life people (who incorrectly still think that if they are honest and careful that they will be treated right) so that corporations can be shielded from their most outrageous and calculating conduct.

Tort reform terminates the struggle of innocent injured people for a return to normalcy in their lives and puts them on welfare (so the same whiners who support tort reform are still going to pay for the support of these innocent injured- but it will no longer effect business obscene profitability). Tort reform doesn't just effect frivolous lawsuits. Tort deform's purpose is to cause innocent people who are catastrophically injured by big business to lose everything (self-support, family, self-respect and everything else) so that business does not need to be responsible for the injuries it causes. Will this help big business much? Probably not. The insurers as always will never even lower premiums- they will continue to pocket all profit for themselves, and now it will include blood money- the monetary benefits of the security that has been taken away from the innocent catastrophically injured.

[Ted]

Bill, the reason no one mentions the "coffee comprising the integrity of the cup" is because the coffee didn't do anything to the cup. Liebeck spilled the coffee when she removed the lid. Her theory is that coffee should never be served at a temperature higher than 140 degrees. Not even ATLA claims that the coffee cup (identical to the billions of coffee cups sold without incident) had anything to do with the accident.

[Kat Ab.]

Relax, poeple! Just becasue one personw as lucky enough to win the coffee suit, not everybody will go running about sue-happy. Hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds is a bit overboard, even for those of you who drink hot coffee.
Personally, I feel the woman was lucky not to get 3rd degree burn in her mouth, a leg must be bit easier to treat!
Not all hot coffee is sue worthy, but an excessively hot coffee is. A product that causes undue damages... and had caused undue damages is worth the money.
And yes, McDonalds deserved the suit. If tehy feel thy can ignore 700 other similiar cases, hence indicating a major issue, then well..

[Mike]

It's unfortunate that people have been burned from hot coffee. McDonalds had served that coffee to millions and millions of people that didn't get burned when drinking it. If one or even 700 people were burned from spilling it on their skin that is their fault. McDonalds never sold coffee for the purpose of spilling it on your genitals. There are countless products that can be harmfull if not used correctly.
Now if McDonald's coffee was so hot that it gave 2nd and 3rd degree burns to everyone who tried drinking it, then that is another issue...

[Kayla]

I think it's her own fault. I work at McDonalds and I spill coffee on myself all the time you just have to suck it up or be careful. It's coffee people...coffe is hot it's common sense. Duh

[HuMMMMM]

I recently was injured due to a loose floor board in McD's. McD's knew the board was broke and located in heavy customer area, but failed to repair the board. The manager documented her statement regarding their neglegence, while filking out my injury report.

I have a sprained knee and hospital bills. Would it be unjust to think they should pay my expenses? No,they were neglegent and caused my injury. Maybe if they had a sign up warning people about the damaged floor board I may have avoided injury.

From my point of view the coffee is no different. Where was the warning. They were well aware the temp could casue serious burns but chose to save money by using hotter weaker coffee products.THEN chose not to warn its customers of the damagers. Burns requiring skin grafts is serious business and very painful. This lady suffered.

Wait until McD's hurts you or a family member you will think twice.

[Matt]

Honestly, all of you who declare it is Stella's fault, you should be ashamed of what you are saying. Starbucks and coffee bean are the two coffe places here in california. The temperature at which both of those places serve their coffe e is in no excess of 110 degress celsius. This womans coffee was at 190 degrees celsius. That is 80% Hotter!!! This woman did not want to sue McDonalds. She simply wanted them to pay her medical bills. Perhaps you should read all of the article before you make comments like that. Pretend for a second that you are a man. And you spill water at the temperature of 190 degrees all of your penis and your testicles.Don't tell me that that would not hurt. Just put your self in her shoes before you start making judgements. "The coffee was not fit for consumption" said McDonalds. They said it their self. When it happens to you, with 190 degree coffee, you'll understand her pain!

[Ted]

Matt, no offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

1. Starbucks serves its coffee hotter than McDonald's does. Which is why Starbucks is so popular, because coffee needs to be hot to be good.

2. "190 degrees Celsius" (or even 110 degrees Celsius) would be steam, not liquid; look it up.

[Blake the Bush supporter]

I heard there was a lady that sued McDonald's because the people there didn't tell her that her coffee was hot and she burned herself. I mean what a moron. Did she think the coffee would be cold? That's a stupid and poor excuse. What a con-artist. "Here's your cold coffee ma'am, enjoy". That's why they have to stupid proof everything nowdays on tags so people don't get hurt and sew.

[steveo]

I think she just had some kinky fetish that turned out bad

[Juan-two-tree]

I don't really care about the lady who has butter fingers and who is really clumsey. Obviosly you guys don't have a life to be sitting there reading about other peoples problems.

I don't really care about the lady who has butter fingers and who is really clumsey. Obviosly you guys don't have a life to be sitting there reading about other peoples problems.

[WANDA]

I think taht it is both McDonald's and the ladies because ya. It is both of there faults.

THE END

I think taht it is both McDonald's and the ladies because ya. It is both of there faults.

[WANDA]

I think taht it is both McDonald's and the ladies because ya. It is both of there faults.