Classic Example of Public Misconceptions Embraced by Tort Reformers

---

The Incident:
(Albuquerque, New Mexico – February 1992)
Stella Liebeck, 79, suffered severe burns after she spilled coffee on herself. She purchased the coffee at a drive-through owned and operated by fast-food giant McDonald's. She was not the driver of the car and the coffee was spilled while the car was parked. That is, Ms. Liebeck's grandson had pulled the car to the curb and the vehicle was stationary before she placed the cup of coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the lid for the purpose of adding cream and sugar. As she lifted one side of the lid, the coffee spilled onto her lap. Immediately, the coffee was absorbed by her sweatpants. Her clothing forced what was later learned to be “super-heated coffee” against her skin.

The Injuries:
Ms. Liebeck's injuries were severe. She suffered full thickness burns
(third-degree burns) and scalding to her inner thighs, groin and buttocks. She was in the hospital for eight days and had to undergo extremely painful procedures to remove layers of dead skin, as well as several graft operations.

The Coffee:
The McDonald's coffee Ms. Liebeck purchased was served at a temperature of between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. For home use, coffee is generally brewed at 135 to 140 degrees. If spilled on skin, any beverage heated to between 180 and 190 degrees will cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds.

The Action:
Ms. Liebeck's original intention was to obtain legal help in order to be reimbursed for her medical expenses, which were said to have totalled nearly $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to pay her medical bills. This led Ms. Liebeck to file a product-liability suit.

The Damage Awards:
A jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This sum was reduced to $160,000 because, appropriately, she was found to be partially responsible for the incident. More significantly, the jury members saw fit to punish McDonald's. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. This amount represented approximately two days of profit from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. It also represented the single most publicized aspect of this case. The trial judge reduced the award of punitive damages to $480,000 (three times the amount of the original compensatory damages). Rather than going through an appeal, the actual settlement amount was reached between the parties, confidentially, for an undisclosed sum.

The Key, but Least Publicized, Details:
During trial preparation, Ms. Liebeck's lawyer learned that McDonald's had roughly 700 reports on file of similar injuries caused (between 1982 and 1992) by its extremely hot coffee. Some of the complaints advised of third-degree burns that were caused by McDonald’s superheated coffee. Despite this information, McDonald's had not taken any actions to reduce the temperature of its coffee. NOTE: The restaurant chain has since reduced the temperature of its product.

The Epilogue:
In a sense, this case wasn't won by the plaintiff or lost by the defence. It was won by those lobbying for tort reform. They won a public relations campaign by misleading the public and unfairly characterizing certain details of this case. As a result, Ms. Liebeck was further victimized by jokes that made a mockery of her injuries and the harmful actions of McDonald's.