• More Hot Coffee
• Revisit the Case of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Corporation.The jury considered whether McDonald's acted improperly in selling 180-degree (or hotter) coffee that was significantly hotter than a consumer would expect from common experience. Stella Liebeck spilled her McDonald's coffee in her lap and incurred third-degree burns, received skin grafts, and spent seven days in the hospital. We learned that McDonald's cost-benefit defense backfired and that, despite all the ridicule, Stella's lawsuit was not frivolous.

• Let's look at what the jury thought about the merits of Stella's claims: Testimony at trial showed that before the lawsuit, McDonald's had received over 700 complaints about burns, some of them third-degree, suffered by customers who spilled coffee on themselves. A McDonald's executive testified that McDonald's knew of the risk of burns caused by its hotter-than-average coffee and knew that most customers did not realize the specific risk posed by coffee at those temperatures, but nevertheless did not intend to warn customers of the risk. The suit was not about a mere failure to warn that coffee is hot; it was about failure to warn of the danger created by serving materially hotter-than-normal coffee to customers who knew they were buying something hot.
• The McDonald's coffee lawsuit demonstrates the many factors that can figure into resolution of a personal injury claim, from the initial request for payment of medical bills (a negotiation) to a jury verdict and ultimate resolution by settlement. It is also an example of the many theories of liability a plaintiff may rely on in pursuing her claim. Mrs. Liebeck claimed that the coffee as served was excessively hot and McDonald's was liable under the theory of strict liability. She also alleged an absence of care and foreseeability of harm under a negligence theory; gross negligence; willful and wanton disregard of her rights, safety, and welfare; and for the marketing defect of no warning, or in the alternative, insufficient warning, because McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants P.T.S., Inc. fully knew of and were aware of innumerable burn cases caused by the fault, or in the alternative, negligence of their operations in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of extremely hot coffee. She also made claims under implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, arising under the Uniform Commercial Code.

• Among other defenses, McDonald's claimed Mrs. Liebeck's injuries were a result of her own negligence.

• The jury found for Mrs. Liebeck on her claims of product defect, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The jury also found that she was twenty percent at fault.

• After the above summary,readHot Coffee below:

• Based on this information, answer the following questions. When you answer these questions, first consider the definition of each legal claim and fit the relevant facts into that claim.Citations and referencesif possible.

1. What was the basis of the jury's verdict of product defect?

2. What was the basis of the jury's verdict of breach of implied warranty of merchantability?

3. What was the basis of the jury's verdict of breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

4. What legal principle did the jury apply when apportioning liability between McDonald's and Mrs. Liebeck?

5. How did the judge characterize McDonald's conduct to support the award of punitive damages to Mrs. Liebeck?

Hot Coffee

The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case

It is the case that gave rise to the attacks on "frivolous lawsuits" in the United States. Almost everyone seems to know about it. And there's a good chance everything you know about it is wrong.

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald's and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

Typical reaction: Isn't coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald's didn't pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn't paying attention.

Now for the facts:

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.

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. Mrs. Liebeck's injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck's case was far from an isolated event. McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury's punitive damages award made headlines upset by McDonald's unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days' worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn't, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald's later reached a confidential settlement.

Here issome of the evidencethe jury heard during the trial:

• McDonald's operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.

• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.

• McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.

• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.

• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn't taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, "there was a person behind everynumberand I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that."

• 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.

• McDonald's admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then-required temperature.

• McDonald's 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.

In astory about the case(pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people." Another jurorsaid,"the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company."

That's because those jurors were able to hear all the facts including those presented by McDonald's and see the extent of Mrs. Liebeck's injuries. Ask anyone who criticizes the case as a "frivolous lawsuit" that resulted in "jackpot justice" if they have done the same.