The Actual Facts about the McDonalds' Coffee Case
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it
is important to understand some points that were not reported in most
of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it
was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin,
flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat
of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds'
coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that
was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local
McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case,
often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was
in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic
lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the
cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it
next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered
full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her
body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and
groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time
she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and
nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home
is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the
company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot
at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that
burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the
extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases
exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155
degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own
research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers
of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This
amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20
percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7
million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has
never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a
public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media
reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be
condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. (c) 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys
of California
Comments [0]