The Hot Coffee Lawsuit

 A Brief Intro of The Hot Coffee Lawsuit

The hot coffee lawsuit was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against McDonald's. In 1992, the 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru and spilled it on her lap. The coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds and suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident. She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered. 

What Was The Basis of Her Claim Against McDonald's? 

Liebeck hired Texas attorney Reed Morgan to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico accusing McDonald's of the negligence of selling coffee that was unreasonably dangerous and defectively manufactured. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for the payment to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses and her daughter's loss of income. Assumption of risk is that a defense in which the plaintiff is barred from recovery because the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed known risks which are used by McDonald's in this case to support its argument.

Was the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability? 

It is obviously not an intentional case since it is impossible for McDonald's to intentionally hurt its customers. Therefore, the question is, is it a negligent or strict liability? If you are the lawyer hired by Stella Liebeck, you must review the definition of each to find the best solution to succeed. 

To prove it is negligence, you have to prove the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, the conduct caused the result, and the damage is legally recognizable injuries. Therefore, the lawyer has to prove McDonald's owed a duty to prevent the burn, breached the duty, the breaching did directly caused the result, and the damage is legally recognizable injuries. I think the most difficult part is the first one, why McDonald's owed a duty to prevent the burns. If the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists. That means if a business knows about, or should know about, a high likelihood of the possible harm, then that business must warn or take steps to protect its customers. 

If McDonald's is sued for negligence, it has affirmative defenses such as the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed known risks(assumption of risk), it is not available to the defendant who caused a dangerous situation in the first place, or the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries. Therefore, McDonald's may argue that the plaintiff should know it was a hot drink and it may hurt if it spilled. And, Stella Liebeck did accidentally spill it out and caused her own injuries.

Strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness. It is irrelevant how carefully the defendant acted. It doesn’t matter if the defendant took every precaution to avoid harm. In this case, Liebeck's attorneys may argue that, at around 180 to 190 °F, the coffee was defective since it is under McDonald's control of how it would be served, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment.

To summarize, I think Ms. Liebeck's lawyers applied an excellent strategy to address the event to become a negligent and somewhat strict liability case. He accused McDonald's of the negligence of selling coffee that was unreasonably dangerous and defectively manufactured. The McDonald's argument that the plaintiff should know it was a hot drink and it may hurt if it spilled seems too weak to become a valid excuse. However, Stella Liebeck did accidentally spills it out and caused her own injuries, so she is responsible for this careless action. But if the temperature was ten degrees lower or more, it will be harmless when it spilled out. 

Why did Ms. Liebeck's lawyers believe that McDonald's was liable to Ms. Liebeck? 

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at around 180 to 190 °F, McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at around 82 to 88°C. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 60 °C and that several other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. They presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was all served at a temperature at least 11°C lower than what McDonald's served. Liebeck's lawyers also presented the jury with expert testimony that a cup of 88°C coffee may produce third-degree burns in about 3 seconds and a cup of 82°C coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 71 °C would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. More important documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 complaints of people burned by McDonald's coffee.

Do you think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give you third-degree burns? 

Normally, we know it is hot. But give me third-degree burns? Honestly, I thought it only happens when I touch a hot pot while cooking something or accidentally touch something really hot like a volcano or something like that. So, I think it is kind of not reasonable to expect that a hot latte purchased from a coffee shop might quickly give me third-degree burns. It is terrible. Another small detail I want to mention is that the design of the cups for hot drinks. The cup lid must be strong enough to prevent a possible spill. But, don't make me wrong, I mean that it spills out eventually for ensuring if you put the cup upside down. However, it should not spill out while it is just a little bit slope. In addition, the size of the hole in the lid should be large enough for customers to drink and also small enough that customers do not burn their tongues. 

How did the jury decide the case? 

The jury reached its verdict on the Liebeck case on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Comparative negligence means a partial defense that reduces the plaintiff’s recovery by the amount of the plaintiff’s own negligence. Under this rule, the jury is asked to determine to what extent the plaintiff is at fault, and the plaintiff’s total recovery is then reduced by that percentage. 

Why do you think the jury decided the case this way? 

A partial defense that reduces the plaintiff’s recovery by the amount of the plaintiff’s own negligence. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.

Summerize The Key Evidence of The Case

i. McDonald’s required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

ii. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in just 3 to 7 seconds.

iii. The chairman of the department of biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable.

iv. The defendant admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its hot coffee for more than 10 years. 

v. The jury did not think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.

vi. McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s 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.

vii. The defendant admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at the temperature.

viii. The defendant admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

Reference

"Know the facts:" resources for consumers. (n.d.). Retrieved November 26, 2021, from https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts. 

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat World Knowledge.

Tort law: Strict liability and abnormally dangerous activities. Lawshelf Educational Media. (n.d.). Retrieved November 27, 2021, from https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/strict-liability-in-tort-law.