Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media

[Quixote1818]

[suzanner]

1. Thanks for posting...

Since I happened to look into the facts of this case, I've corrected people every time they cite this case as an example of frivolous lawsuits. Only one of these people has ever emailed me back that I was right.

[marble falls]

6. Its a frivolous lawsuit not because she wasn't burned. She was, horribly. She was burned because ...

she bought hot coffee and placed it between her legs while her high school aged driver grandson who couldn't wait for her to situate herself drove off over a speed bump. As much as I hate the clown, its the grandson's driving over a speed bump while grandma placed a cup of freshly poured hot coffee that she had taken the lid off beween her legs that is the cause of this.

[ET Awful]

7. Except for the fact that the coffee was far hotter than it should have been

you might have a point, but unfortunately, you don't.

The fact is that the coffee was far, far hotter than necessary or required.

If you spill coffee on yourself, you expect some redness, a yelp and that's about it, you don't expect 3rd degree burns. If she had sipped that coffee at the temperature it was served, the third degree burns would have been on her mouth.

But you've done a wonderful job of blaming the victim.

It's also worth noting that the award she was granted amounted to about 2 days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds . . . hardly a significant amount to them in the overall scheme of thin and nowhere near the catastrophe that people portrayed it to be.

[zipplewrath]

8. My tea is hotter

I'm not sure where you're getting the "should have been" part. It was hot, hotter than alot of places make it. But it was cooler than my tea is when I make it. And the jury did find that the woman was partially responsible. But the way the law works, if they find that McDonalds was also responsible, they can be held liable.

It was an unfortunate situation, and there were mitigating circumstances that made this burn particularly bad, as compared to many of the other cases.

I worked in a restaurant that had the "bottomless" cups of coffee. We kept it pretty hot, because the customers liked it that way (probably because they put so much friggin' cream in it). But the hostesses had to be specifically warned about working with the hot pots. People always wanted to "hold" the cup while they poured. Nope, too easy to spill on their hands/laps. And they weren't suppose to carry anything else while they carried the pots. I see places today with waitresses hauling coffee and other plates. I hope it's cool because if anything goes wrong, there could be hot coffee on alot of people.

[ET Awful]

9. Your tea is 180 degrees? I doubt that seriously.

Your tea is hot enough to cause third degree burns through all layers of skin down to the muscle in just a few seconds? I doubt that too.

It's exceedingly uncommon to find coffee heated to 180 degrees.

But you can continue blaming the victim (and not actually reading the history of the case in which McDonalds had received over 800 complaints prior to this one).

[zipplewrath]

10. The jury did

The jury blamed the victim. They also blamed McDonalds.

And yes, my tea is boiling water, that's 212F at this altitude. I pour it in a large cup and let it sit a bit before drinking it. One has to be careful because you can seriously burn your mouth if you forget it is still hot.

I have also found it a tad funny, well after this case, that I've seen restaurants have their coffee mahcines still set around 180F. The vast majority are well below that, around 140 or so. But I see the occasional machine set at 160+ in odd ball gas stations and gas-and-goes. I have spoken to folks that really like it that hot too, again I suspect it is either because of the amount of cream they add, or that they are driving a long way prior to actually getting around to drinking any of it.

Also, the reason it burnt so deep was because the fluid (alot of it) was held in place by her clothes. If it had been her hand or foot or something, it would have just "run off". It will still injure, but not nearly as bad. I've done something similar with melted sugar. It'll burn really bad because is sticks in place.

[ET Awful]

11. You seem to have misread the verdict.

They held the victim liable for spilling the coffee and reduced compensatory damages accordingly, they held McDonalds liable for willfully selling coffee that was far too hot after having had numerous complaints and being made aware of the risks, thus the high verdict everyone is familiar with.

What you've just stated is that your tea, when ready for consumption, is NOT that hot. Well done, you're getting the point.

[zipplewrath]

12. When served

My tea, when served, is quite hot. I'm smart enough not to drink it, or hold it in my lap, until it cools (or I cool it off). McDonalds also was serving their coffee quite hot, and the VAST majority of customers didn't burn themselves with it. Some of their customers actually liked it served that hot. They sold ALOT of coffee.

And yes, the jury held the person liable for their role in the accident. Were they "blaming the victim"? They also held McDonalds liable for their role. To a great degree, ones point of view here is really about who should have been more responsible (legally speaking) for ensuring safety. IIRC, this was not the woman's first cup of McDonalds coffee. Was she not aware of how hot it was served?

I'm still not sure how the coffee was "not suppose to be that hot". There were no regulations or laws dictating, indicating, advising, nor regulating coffee temperature.

[ET Awful]

13. So, in your world, receiving hundreds of reports of injury doesn't warrant action?

Interesting.

Thousands of people drove cars without seat belts before seat belts were mandated, do you oppose the use of seat belts?

It's clear you don't understand, you've made that obvious.

Let's clear it up . . . there is no reason that a beverage that can cause third degree burns in less than three seconds of contact should be served in a flimsy flexible cup that is easily spilled or collapsed.

The jury was quite clear in their opinion that the coffee was too hot and that McDonalds negligently sold a product they knew presented a risk.

[zipplewrath]

16. Action or responsibility?

I'm not actually as militant on this case as many. I think McDonalds actually lost the case because of they way they reacted to it. It implied that they were aware that they were in trouble and seemed to be afraid to change anything for fear of admitting responsibility.

They received hundreds of reports out of millions of cups sold.

I'm not sure what seatbelts have to do with anything, but I wouldn't hold the manufacturer responsible for a car made without them, until after they were mandated.

There are reasons for serving coffee quite hot, and I've mentioned a few before. And they sold ALOT of coffee, so they had reason to believe their customers wanted it that way. They are a very customer focused company and research greatly what influences buying patterns. The cup wasn't flimsy until the customer removed the lid. It was the removal of the lid in a dangerous situation that led directly to the accident. If the lids on, no way that much coffee gets spilled.

Yes, the jury did render an opinion, after the fact, that the coffee should have been served cooler. That was information not available to McDonalds at the time of the sale and manufacture. If not for the fact that it was jury, and not a legislature, and for the existence of the "known or should have known" standard, it would qualify as an ex post facto law, which is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.

As I say, I'm not as militant as many (including yourself near as I can tell) about this case. McDonalds behavior is hard to understand, but really do you think it was their intent to injure their customers, or were they attempting to increase sales by producing a popular product? I think they let the lawyers do too much of their thinking, or else they probably could have easily started handling this in a vastly different manner, up to including serving the coffee cooler, or at least as an option. But the flip side is that because I don't believe they were trying to injure their customers (there was no direct profit motive for them to do so) I see far more of an ex post facto angle to this. It pits the wants and desires of one set of customers against another and places companies, not regulatory bodies (much less legislatures), in the position of sorting out the conflict. If they get it wrong, in the eyes of a jury, they lose.

[ET Awful]

19. Complete and utter nonsense.

The information wasn't available to McDonalds until after the verdict?

The hundreds of documented cases prior to this one don't constitute making information available?

Seatbelts are a very good analogy to this case for anyone approaching it rationally. No manufacturer wanted to implement them until they were liable for the damages caused by their absence.

Did they intend to hurt their customers? No. Did they display completely willful negligence in ignoring all the prior complaints? Yup.

You can try to pretend that McDonalds wasn't duly notified of the risks of their product, but the fact that they were notified was the very reason the jury found as they did. The jury would not have reached that verdict if the Plaintiff had not shown that McDonalds was well aware of the hazards of the product.

But keep on living in your little bubble.

[zipplewrath]

20. How low was low enough?

How low a temperature would have satisfied the jury? How could McDonalds have known it up front?

Hundreds out of millions doesn't really constitute a large issue for a company like them. They probably see that many injures in their restraurants regularly from falls and similar accidents.

I suspect there was, as I have acknowledged, an understanding that there was an issue. As for the solution, they seemed to be afraid to acknowledge it for fear of then being held liable for past incidents. Like I said, they seemed to let the lawyers take charge. And as I've suggested before, they seem to have been responding to their customers who actually liked the coffee hot, for what ever reasons. I'm under no illusions that their actions were due to their altruistic nature, but nor do I believe they set out to injure them. It was the balance between two competing interests that was the underlying issue. They chose one balance (hundreds vs. millions) instead of the "the needs of the few over the many". And yes, profit is a huge portion of that decision. But it is a profit driven apparently by the desires of a large number of their customers which apparently prefer it hot. Otherwise lowering the temperature may have been a forgone conclusion very early on.

Again, I'm sorry for your sisters pain, and the whole Darwin Awards crowd's hurtful antics on this subject.

[ET Awful]

21. What an astounding demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension . . .

My sister suffered no such injury.

You might want to try again.

Your sympathy for the almighty golden arches is duly noted.

However, contrary to your assertion, regardless of the total number of cups of coffee sold, 800 or more reports of injury or burns is sufficient to constitute notice to the company.

If you'd read the actual information on the case and comprehended it (an obvious weak point for you), you'd know that under 130 degrees would have been sufficient, but you didn't read anything regarding the case other than something which supported your ridiculous outrage and victim blaming.

[zipplewrath]

22. I'm trying to stay civil

I understand your point of view comes from a personally emotional place.

But my question is AT THE TIME how would they have known that 130 would have satsified the jury. The airlines keep their coffee at VASTLY lower temperatures. How would McDonalds have know BEFORE THE FACT that 130 would have sufficed. Remember, the court record you are reading did not exist at the time.

[ET Awful]

23. Ummm. . . they didn't need to know what would satisfy a jury, they needed to listen to the numerous

reports they'd had and take action.

Instead, they did NOTHING in response to the hundreds of reports they had previously. The court record exists BECAUSE they did nothing in response to prior reports and complaints.

If they had listened to the hundreds of complaints they received prior to this one, this one would not have existed.

That's the entire point of the case.

[zipplewrath]

24. Easy to say in hindsight

The problem is, sitting there in the lawyers chair several years prior, making significant changes in response to a few severe cases (it was way less than 6 sigma I suspect) opens you up to effectively admitting that there was/is a problem. So they have to then make a few decisions. One of them is if they are going to be proactive in advance, and take the risk that this will be perceived as some sort of admission of "guilt" or culpability. And you'd better pick a temperature that will satisfy a future jury. Because if you don't you'll both open up yourself to liability, AND you won't make the problem go away.

Furthermore, if they actually believe that their sales volume was connected to the temperature (i.e. a significant portion of their customers actually preferred it enough to make it a differentiator from their competitors) they'll also take a sales hit on top of any future claims (which at the time was probably seen as a much bigger fiscal risk to them. Dunno if anyone was thinking they could lose a case quite this big).

But this is sorta what I mean by "letting the lawyers run things". Quite honestly, the folks running the company have to send the lawyers "out of the room" at some point and start asking themselves if maybe something should change, regardless of the risk. Really, in hindsight, and to some extent based upon the practices of other folks, serving coffee that hot through a drive through, or even "over the counter" may not have been a brillant choice. It's one thing when hostesses are pouring into cups on counters, but a bit like airlines, when it's getting passed around to be held in hands/laps/cup holders, it may not be the smartest thing. At the very least they could have provided some sort of option. A few ounces of water shot in at the time of the pour could have lowered the temperature significantly. Heck, it could be an option. They could avertise "some like it hot!".

But I'm still surprised that with all the restaurant regulation we had at the time (everything from hair nets to how wet rags must be stored) that no government agency, or restaurant association had lain out some of these problems and their proper procedures.

[ET Awful]

25. You're merely trying to over complicate things.

If a manufacturer gets 800 complaints saying "your product is dangerous and hurts people" but ignores all those complaints, the company is, by law, liable for damages caused by that product. They were given due notice that the product was hazardous and failed to take action.

It's called product liability.

It has nothing to do with "lawyers running things". It has everything to do with a company putting profits ahead of all else.

There is no law that states that a business must always make sure that there are no potholes in their parking lot or slick spots caused by ice, but if someone slips and falls as a result of such a situation, the business is most definitely liable. If they have been advised of prior injuries caused by the situation and another injury occurs, they are held liable for punitive as well as compensatory damages. That's the way it works, that's the way it's worked for many, many years.

Had they given as much attention to the complaints as they did to advertising their Monopoly game on TV, they could have avoided the suit, they chose not to do so.

No amount of equivocation on your part will change that. The fact is that a corporation sold a hazardous product, that product was known by the corporation to be hazardous, the corporation made no effort to reduce the hazard in any way, and a person was injured as a result. Nothing you can say will change that.

Your concern for profits over people has been duly noted (and dismissed by the Court).

[zipplewrath]

30. I'll ignore your personal attacks

They were selling a product which has been sold for centuries and no one ever established that it could be "too hot". It was cooler than other products sold, and it was wildly popular. No one else had ever been found liable for selling such a product at such a temperature, and no one had ever established what an "acceptable temperature" was.

But apparently your assertion is that McDonalds was either run by the most incompentent people on earth, who sold products designed to make a profit by injuring their customers, who apparently needed to be forced to buy it because it was so undesireable to them.

No, wait, they were people who couldn't see the obvious because they were blind to customer satisfaction and only wanted to push a product that was dangerous and hazardous to their customers.

No wait, they were the evil empire laughing hysterically at their customers as they injured them.

It couldn't possibly be that they had literally 10's of millions of customers (100's of millions world wide) and 800 scattered incidents, (not all of them as bad as this case) over a period of time tha would possibly just never get very far into the corporation. It couldn't be that these cases out of shear inertia ended up in the lawyers office, instead of the board room, and therefor were handled by people paid to protect the company from lawsuits, instead of improve product safety.

I'll admit that one would think by now, after the Pinto lawsuits if nothing else, that even lawyers might take a step back at some point and realize that even big companies with lots of lawyers and deep pockets can lose cases some time. You'd think that they'd have procedures for considering whether they NEEDED to win these cases, even if they can. But you must also admit that what was happening here was that they were selling a product that had been sold since the original Tea Party and no one had ever suggested there was such a thing as "illegally hot". As such, the lawyers position can be seen, even if seen as a bit narrow and limited.

The real lessons here is that even if your product is wildly popular, there can still be something fundamentally wrong. And that someone is always the first one to be found doing the wrong thing, even if alot of other people are too.

[ET Awful]

32. It's quite obvious that you have no knowledge of what product liability is

and how it is applied.

The assertion isn't that they were incompetent, but that they willfully ignored hundreds of complaints in favor of their belief that customers wanted coffee that hot.

Hell, lots of people liked Coca Cola when it had cocaine in it too, that didn't make it safe.

I'll tell you what - when you actually have an understanding of what responsibility the seller of a product has to insure its safety, come back and talk to me, until then, I'm done with you.

Just a little tip - how many people liked the product that hot is completely irrelevant, it has no basis on whether they are liable. The fact that it posed a hazard is sufficient to subject them to liability, how many people liked it and weren't injured is completely irrelevant.

Plenty of people liked asbestos insulation too, most of them didn't get sick as a result, but enough did and were ignored by manufacturers until they were held liable.

The same legal principle applies.

I don't expect you to understand that though, you've proven that you don't comprehend product liability.

Another clue for you - there doesn't have to be a specific law as to temperature for the producer to be held liable.

Nobody said "illegally hot" anywhere in the case or in this thread (except you).

I'm done with you, your continued attempts to deter from the reality of product liability and how it is applied shows that your comprehension of this case (and most likely all other such product liability cases) is so flawed as to be unworthy of debate.

[zipplewrath]

39. I understand, I just don't agree

I understand alot about product liability. But I don't agree with all of the applications and outcomes of the concept.

But I understand that in your mind that makes me personally flawed and unworthy of even having a point of view.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

35. You fail to grasp the whole concept of product liability...

.... and how it relates to delivering a product to a consumer that is supposed to be fit for human consumption at time of delivery. The McD coffee is not fit for human consumption at 180 degrees. That means, as the suit claims, it was "defective".

You seem too quick to come to the defense and release all liability to a corporation that makes it their BUSINESS and makes a profit passing IN TO CARS a product that will cause third degree burns on contact. Don't you think some consideration should be made by the company of the fact they are passing over-temp coffee over their customer's laps?

You act as though there is no guidelines for scalding temperatures as it pertains to water, food or appliances. You say:

"There were no regulations or laws dictating, indicating, advising, nor regulating coffee temperature."
Um, yeah, there are reams of information and guidelines for people/businesses to consult regarding temperature settings.

I build kitchens and baths. I often have occasion to be around and make adjustments to hot water settings on hot water heaters for my clients. I won't set the temp higher than 120 degrees. If the customer wants it any higher they have to do it themselves - with the caveat that 140-150 degrees can scald quickly. I also point out that temperatures should be kept low when children or elderly/disabled people will use the facilities. I always remind my clients of an "ER" reality show I watched where an elderly man fell in the tub and couldn't get out of the way of scalding water and received (and died from) third degree burns over 70% of his body.

[zipplewrath]

38. Oh, I understand it

I don't always feel comfortable with the way it is applied.

And there were no regulations for coffee temperature, which is why they tried to establish a "industry standard" by surveying other coffee sellers.

I have agreed multiple times that I think McDonalds was foolish not to have really considered this problem and acted upon it. It was a slowly growing problem that, liability or not, really was in their interest to address.

My discomfort is really with the ex post facto aspect of the decision. No one established that they were doing this to make money off of the injured. And from everything I learned over the years, there were alot of folks that liked it served that hot (predominately because apparently it was 20 minutes or so before they actually started to drink it, i.e. when they finally got to the work site).

I got into this whole conversation because someone said it was "hotter than it should have been". Near as I can tell, no one defined "too hot" until this case came along, and as I understand it, most places still don't legally define "too hot" in terms of temperature.

[Hekate]

17. Please see my post #14 about how a splash on my sister's ankle gave her 3rd degree burns

There's no excuse for this.

[zipplewrath]

18. I'm sorry for your sister

That must have been painful for along time. Severe burns are a real problem and can be for a long time. I can understand how you would react emotionally to this case, especially to the silly "darwin awards" crowd.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. A buddy of mine spent two weeks in the hospital after spilling...

... McD's coffee on his high-top gym shoe. He received third degree burns when he couldn't get the shoe off quick enough. The burns became infected and led to a hospital stay.

He never reported it or sued McD.

Ironically he just settled a $300,000 lawsuit for soft tissue damage of someone's foot he accidentally ran over in Chicago downtown. I think the plaintiff settle for the insurance amount of 100k.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. except that is not true....they were parked.

[marble falls]

31. Oh, then why did the trial judge portion some of the blame on her and her grandson?

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Proof please..

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, which didn't have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10]

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg).[12] Two years of medical treatment followed.

[Warpy]

27. I live in the city where it happened and we got a lot more news about it than Chung reported

She was horribly burned, full thickness burns that required skin grafting.

McDonald's had numerous complaints about their scalding coffee and the local health department had warned them to turn it down to a more reasonable 160-170.

While the original award was trumpeted, the award on appeal covered her medical bills for the extensive grafting she required and the physical therapy afterward to get her to a functional level. The appellate judge agreed that she and her grandson bore some of the blame and thus the original award was reduced to her costs, all she'd sued for from the beginning.

McDonald's would have been way ahead of the game had they simply settled out of court. They refused, it went to trial, and talking heads have sensationalized it ever since.

The whole case is proof the justice system works. The plaintiff did get her medical bills paid and the high "pain and suffering" award was dismissed. However, most people out there in TV land still think she cashed in and is enjoying the windfall from the judicial lottery.

And the heat of their coffee has crept up again and people are starting to complain again.

[rsdsharp]

29. One...

the grandson didn't drive over a speed bump. He pulled into a parking spot so that they could organize their breakfast. The car was not in motion when the coffee spilled.

Two...Mrs. Liebeck put the cup between her legs because there was no cup holder in the car. She did so to take the top off to add cream and sugar which, by McDonald's policy, was served on the side. The jury found her to be 20% at fault for this act.

Three...McDonald's required their franchisees to serve coffee between 180-190 degrees. Liquids at 180 degrees can cause third degree burns within 2-7 seconds.

Four...The jury award of compensatory damages was $200,000. (At mediation a retired judge had warned McDonald's that in his estimation compensatory damages might exceed $250,000.) This was reduced to $160,000 due to the finding that Mrs. Liebeck was 20% at fault. Punitive damages were assessed at 2.7 million -- two days of coffee sales by McDonald's. This was reduced by the judge to an amount equal to treble compensatory damges, or $480,000, making the total judgment $640,00. It settled on appeal, presumably for a lesser amount.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/truth-about-stella-liebeck

[closeupready]

2. Yes, thank you. Very informative and interesting.

Watched the whole thing, and I appreciate this correction of public mythology about the case.

[Bjorn Against]

3. I had never seen the photos of the burns before this, no one would laugh if they saw those

When you see just how badly that woman was scalded it is clear that her suit was justified, for the media to mock this woman without even examining the facts of the case it shows just how shameful our press is.

[SpankMe]

4. Links to some facts on the case...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=785

http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html

The lady who burned herself with the coffee has since passed away at 91. She originally sought only $20k to pay hospital bills and McD's countered with an $800 offer.

The suit was totally justified and the lady was vilified to an irrational degree by right wing, anti-lawyer thugs.

[davidpdx]

5. The simple thing would have been for McDonald's to settle for $20,000

I had a case study for my business ethics class on this. The media did twist the facts quite a bit.

[VWolf]

15. A bit? I'd say a bit more than a bit. n/t

[Hekate]

14. My sis burned her ankle so badly she almost needed a skin graft

She and her husband stopped at McD's while on a bike ride. In the parking lot she accidentally dropped her coffee cup, with lid in place, and the superheated liquid splashed her ankle and gave her a 3rd degree burn. She needed to be driven home, and from there to the ER. She had to return for special wound care and dressings daily until it healed enough that the docs decided she wouldn't need a skin graft.

My coffee at home is not that hot, even before I put cream in it, and I make good coffee.

Every single time someone sends me the Darwin Awards stuff they tell the story about the "silly lady holding the coffee cup between her thighs." That poor woman with her ghastly burns has become a punchline.

McDonald's is at fault. They have a corporate policy to which their branches adhere to keep the coffee urns superheated. As far as the last time I heard about this they have not budged -- and all they have done is to print a caution notice on their cups.

[yeoman6987]

28. McDonald's Coffee

She put the cup between her legs???? Lol. No cup holders in the car? I have drank millions of cups of coffee at McDonald's and never once put the cup between my knees. What is wrong with her??????

[Hekate]

37. 1. Watch the video 2. Read the information in this thread 3. Use fewer question marks.

All will become clear to you.