mcdonald's was sued for hot coffee by stella liebeck.
mcdonald's was sued for hot coffee by stella liebeck.
when was mcdonald's sued for hot coffee?
stella liebeck
in the case of "liebeck v. mcdonald's restaurants" (1994), 79-year-old stella liebeck spilled mcdonald's coffee in her lap which resulted in second and third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, groin and genitals. the burns were severe enough to require skin grafts. liebeck attempted to have mcdonald's pay her $20,000 medical bills as indemnity for the incident. mcdonald's refused, and liebeck sued. during the case's discovery process, internal documents from mcdonald's revealed the company had received hundreds of similar complaints from customers claiming mcdonald's coffee caused severe burns. at trial, this led the jury to find mcdonald's knew their product was dangerous and injuring their customers, and that the company had done nothing to correct the problem. the jury decided on $200,000 in compensatory damages, but attributed 20 percent of the fault to liebeck, reducing her compensation to $160,000. the jury also awarded liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was at the time two days of mcdonald's coffee sales revenue. the judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. the case is often criticized for the very high amount of damages the jury awarded. nevertheless, many legal scholars and documentary film makers like "hot coffee" argued that corporate lobbyists seized the opportunity to create public misinformation and distrust of the legal system by leaving out important facts in their television advertisements, such as, that the verdict was roughly equivalent to 2 days of coffee sales for mcdonald's, that liebeck received permanent injury to her genitals and groin requiring surgery, and that mcdonald's had already received numerous complaints about the temperature of the coffee.
punitive damages
frivolous lawsuits are not only damaging to the image of america, but also to american citizens that try to exercise their rights and are dismissed because of the foolish nature of others cases. frivolous lawsuits are real, this is true, however, the idea of frivolous litigation can cause harm to other cases that have substance but are misrepresented by bias. a famous example of a ‘frivolous’ case that was highly underestimated by the public is liebeck v. mcdonald's restaurants. stella liebeck sued mcdonald's for an incident in 1992 where she received extensive burns from their hot coffee. mrs. liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. she was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the mcdonald’s where she bought the coffee. she had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. not only did mcdonald's have upwards of 700 complaints about this product being too hot previous to this case, but liebeck suffered third degree burns and needed to have multiple skin grafts done to repair the damages, resulting in around 160,000 dollars just in medical bills. before this case was taken to court, liebeck reached out to the company, in which mcdonald's responded with an 800 dollar offer, in which liebeck decided to go to court. after going to court, the plaintiff was awarded around 640 thousand dollars. everyone immediately labeled this a frivolous case. abc news called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits" and was a pivotal moment for those pushing tort reform. the media exploited this case in talk shows, ads, television shows, radio broadcasts, etc. however, in the film “hot coffee”, you can see how extensive the burns are and the public's reaction to the case once they have all the evidence.
tort reform