In a well-publicized case that has become the poster child for tort reform, an 82-year-old woman was awarded almost $2.9 million by a jury for the third- degree burns she suffered after spilling her McDonald's coffee in her lap while she was a passenger in a car stopped at a McDonald's drive-thru window. The verdict consisted of $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive dam- ages. The trial judge subsequently reduced the punitive damages to $480,000.

McDonald's served its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees on the advice of a coffee consultant, who claimed that coffee tastes best at that tem- perature. Coffee brewed at home is typically between 135 and 140 degrees. McDonald's acknowledged that its coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature served. It had previously received 600 complaints of scalding. A juror noted that McDonald's "callous" approach to the suit played a role in the verdict and award. After McDonald's announced its intention to appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount and McDonald's lowered the temperature of its coffee.

Comment: The plaintiff had offered to settle the case before trial if McDonald's agreed to pay her out-of-pocket medical expenses of $2,500 and to turn down the temperature of the coffee, but McDonald's responded with a take-it-or-leave- it offer of $800.

1. At the time, the verdict was widely criticized in the press and on TV.
2. What possible argument(s) could be made to support the verdict?
3. Do you think the verdict was fair? Why or why not?
4. Please consult and list three outside sources for your research on this case.