Jerome Fulton, Jr.
BUL 4310
Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants
July 7th, 2014

Introduction Corporate giants are known for their strong legal defense teams, their shrewd business practices, and their strong presence in politics. In the United States, its adversarial court system allows corporate giants to have the upper hand when faced with litigation. In an adversarial court system, the stronger the defense (lawyers) is, the stronger the case. One extreme case in the American court system that deflects corporate giants’ upper hand in the United States’ adversarial system, is a 1994 “frivolous lawsuit,” Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant. McDonald’s is known for its fast-food and joy that it brings to children with its Happy Meals. However, in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant case, McDonald’s was known as an inconsiderate corporate giant whose nonchalance cost McDonald’s nearly $3 million. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant is a case that was a media train in the 1990s and misconceptions about the case filled the airways.
Case Overview Why should your favorite quick service restaurant be responsible for serving your favorite breakfast beverage, coffee, just how you like it? Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant involved a then 79 year-old, Stella Liebeck, who purchased a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1992 (“McDonald’s,” 2002). “Liebeck tried to hold the cup of coffee between her knees while removing the lid; however, the cup tipped over and the hot coffee burned her.” While there has been speculation that Mrs. Liebeck was driving the car at the time the coffee spilled on her; however, that was not true at all (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). These reports were used to dramatize the case and deem it as a frivolous lawsuit. Mrs. Liebeck’s grandson was the driver on the day of this incident, and when Mrs. Liebeck attempted to open the coffee lid, the car was not in motion. Because of the spilling of the hot coffee, Mrs. Liebeck “suffered third-degree burns to over six percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas” (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). The severe burns caused Mrs. Liebeck to spend eight days in the hospital, and she accrued nearly $11,000 in medical fees (Adelman, 2010 - 2014); however, McDonald’s refused to pay Mrs. Liebeck $20,000 ($11,000 in medical fees and $9,000 in other fees) and offered Mrs. Liebeck a measly $800 instead. Thus, Mrs. Liebeck decided to sue.
Stella Liebeck Twenty-two years ago, back in 1992, Stella Liebeck was a 79 year-old retired sales clerk who decided to buy a 49-cent cup of coffee from a local New Mexican McDonald’s (Adelman, 2010 – 2014). While adding sugar and cream to her coffee, the coffee spilled and she suffered severe burns on sensitive areas on her body. Upon being denied compensation by McDonald’s for her injuries, Mrs. Liebeck took it to court, represented by S. Reed Morgan (“McDonald’s,” 2002), and sparked much controversy over the outcome of the case. Ten years after successfully winning her lawsuit, Mrs. Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at 91 years-old (“Real Stella,” 2002 – 2014).
Misconceptions about the Case In American culture, the Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant is deemed as one of the most frivolous lawsuits of all time due to many misconceptions (Fuchs, 2013). One of the biggest misconceptions about the case is this was the first time that McDonald’s was involved in a hot coffee incident. According to Andrea Gerlin, Staff Reporter for the Wall Street Journal, in 1990, “a California woman suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald’s employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle” (Gerlin, 1994). Instead of taking this to trial as McDonalds did in Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant case, McDonalds settled out of court for $230,000 (Gerlin, 1994). Also, there were over 700 claims of people being burned by coffee between the years of 1982 to 1992 (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). Thus, McDonald’s was informed of the dangers its coffee posed to consumers. Another misconception about this case is that Mrs. Liebeck actually took home the $2.9 million. According to Bonnie Bertram, writer at the New York Times, Mrs. Liebeck was awarded $2.9 million by the jury, but the judge reduced the award to about $500,000 (Bertram, 2013). After the judge awarded Mrs. Liebeck almost $500,000, “Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a post-verdict settlement conference which resulted in a settlement of the case for an undisclosed amount” (Cain, 17). In addition to the superfluous $2.9 million judgment, many sources have erroneously reported that Mrs. Liebeck was driving at the time of the coffee spilling on her; however, “she was in the passenger seat of a parked car when she was scalded” (Bertram, 2013).
Facts about the Case While there has been much speculation about this case, the facts surrounding this case change the way it is viewed in American culture. As heard in court, McDonald’s served coffee that ranged from temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, which would burn the mouth and throat of a customer as stated by a McDonald’s quality assurance manager (“The McDonald’s”). Because of the severe burning (third-degree burns) from the coffee, Mrs. Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital and underwent skin grafts and debridement treatments8 (Cain, 15). McDonald’s was not found 100% at fault for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Of the almost $500,0007 awarded to Mrs. Liebeck, $200,000 of that judgment was awarded for compensatory damages; however, that $200,000 was reduced to $160,000 because the court found Mrs. Liebeck 20 percent at fault (Dedman, 2014). McDonald’s was no stranger to complaints of its coffee being too scorching hot. Over a ten year period before this case, McDonald’s awarded more than $500,000 resulting from individuals being injured by its blazing hot coffee. All of the $500,000 awards were settled outside of court, but McDonald’s took a different approach with Mrs. Liebeck (Gerlin, 1994). Before the court proceedings, McDonald’s had many opportunities to settle out of court; however, McDonald’s refused to do so. Even during the court proceedings, Judge Scott (judge presiding over the case) ordered a mediation session between the two parties, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s. During the mediation, the mediator suggested that McDonald’s settle for $225,000 (Gerlin, 1994). McDonald’s refused the recommendation from the mediator and ended up paying more than twice the amount (the $480,000 judgment) that was recommended by the mediator.
Judgment in the Case When America found out that Stella Liebeck was awarded nearly $3 million from McDonald’s for spilling coffee on herself, the nation was stunned. However, the jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck $2.9 million and the judge substantially reduced that amount to $480,000 (“Legal Myths,” 1999). The question still remains, Should McDonald’s have been held liable for the $480,000 judgment? The answer to this question is Yes. The logic behind my answer is that McDonald’s was aware of the dangers that its hot coffee posed to customers and did nothing about it. Also, McDonald’s had the opportunity to pay Mrs. Liebeck a mere $20,000; however, being the corporate giant that McDonald’s is, McDonald’s thought that no jury would find them liable for the severe burns that Mrs. Liebeck received because of their strong legal team and the “facts” surrounding the case. Only one-third of the $480,000 judgment awarded to Mrs. Liebeck was related to compensatory damages. The remainder of the award was due to McDonald’s callous conduct (“McDonald’s,” 2002). Thus, the majority of the award was not based on Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries (held at fault for 20 percent of her injuries). The majority of the award was based on McDonald’s failure to address the issue and take corrective action regarding the temperature of the coffee. McDonald’s had a reasonable amount of time to find a solution to alleviate the amount of coffee-burning incidents that occurred among its customers since there were more than 700 reports of coffee burns prior to the plaintiff’s injuries (Gerlin, 1994). Also, during the court proceedings, Mr. Appleton, a McDonald’s executive stated, “There are more serious dangers in restaurants” and “McDonald’s didn’t intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures” (Gerlin, 1994). Thus, McDonald’s was still going to operate in a way that potentially harmed its customers. Mrs. Liebeck should not have been awarded nearly $3 million for her injuries, as the judge drastically reduced that award. However, she deserved the $480,000 that the judge awarded her because her initial reaction was not to accumulate wealth and she sustained severe injuries to extremely sensitive areas on her body. Initially, Mrs. Liebeck requested $20,000; however, McDonald’s did not want to properly compensate Mrs. Liebeck for her injuries. McDonald’s did not have any concern for Mrs. Liebeck or any other customers being injured from its coffee; thus, Mrs. Liebeck’s judgment was justified.

McDonald’s Post Case According to industry officials, they speculated that McDonald’s would not change any of its company practices involving the temperatures of coffee (Gerlin, 1994). Though McDonald’s serves coffee that can potentially cause customers to suffer third-degree burns, McDonald’s sells a billion cups a year8 (Gerlin, 1994). Selling a billion cups of a hot coffee a year, back in 1992 and probably even more today, explains why McDonald’s would not be inclined to change the way that it serves its coffee. Since Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant case, there has not been any high profile lawsuits against McDonald’s regarding coffee burns. Does this mean that no one else is being burned by McDonald’s scorching hot coffee? No. McDonald’s has probably learned a lesson by taking these types of cases to court and now is settling outside of court, the more economical thing to do. According to Stuart Pfeifer, author at the LA Times, Twenty years after Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit (January 2014), Paulette Carr, resident of Los Angeles, California, filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s citing that she was burned on January 12, 2012, by a cup of McDonald’s coffee because the coffee lid was improperly placed on the coffee cup (Pfeifer, 2014). As a McDonald’s employee handed the coffee to Carr, the top of the coffee fell off of the coffee and spilled all over Carr (Pfeifer, 2014). Carr’s lawsuit against McDonald’s has failed to garner the attention that Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit garnered. McDonald’s has declined to comment on the case.
McDonald’s Alternatives Though McDonald’s makes millions of dollars selling scorching hot coffee to millions of customers. McDonald’s has created an alternative to your traditional hot coffee, iced coffee and Frappuccinos. Circa 2007, McDonald’s started selling iced coffee (“Coffee Clash,” 2007). Now, customers who want the same coffee effects, but do not want the risk of being burned by the hot coffee, have the option of purchasing iced coffee. Though McDonald’s addition of iced coffee and Frappuccinos is not a result of coffee burn torts and is only an attempt for McDonald’s to gain market share in the coffee industry, customers now have the option to safer morning beverages.
Precedence in America’s Court System Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant set precedence in the American court system. The facts surrounding the case did not leave as much precedence as the misconceptions surrounding the case did. This case set precedence for McDonald’s and other large corporate fast-food restaurants. This case showed that it may be wiser to settle for a small amount out of court instead of paying large judgments and incurring huge legal fees. The erroneous judgment of nearly $3 million set precedence for tort reforms in the American legal system. This case made it harder for citizens to be fully compensated for the torts of other corporations. Since this case, there have not been many mainstream cases that have stemmed from the torts of a fast-food restaurant. This is probably due to fast-food companies settling outside of court.
Tort Reform Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant has been the poster child for corporation’s tort reform (Carlson, 2011). Misconceptions about the judgments and facts of this case have caused a tort reform movement because America thought that a woman received nearly $3 million dollars for spilling coffee on herself, and people just did not know the facts of the case. Corporations have used this case to limit citizens’ abilities to be compensated for the torts of corporations. The media sensationalized and spread many misconceptions about Liebeck v McDonald’s, which caused many people to be falsely in favor of tort reform. Tort reformists are in favor of capping the amounts awarded for people who file a civil lawsuit (Rakoczy, 2013). If you found out that an 80 year-old woman received $3 million for spilling coffee on herself, would you be in favor of tort reform? Yes; however, Mrs. Liebeck did not receive any amount close to $3 million, and she only received $160,000 related to her injuries. The media and tort reformists used Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit as leverage to encourage the public to be in favor of tort reform. Tort reform limits a patient to be fully compensated for the agony and injuries that he or she incurs. This violates constitutional rights (Rakoczy,2013).
Adversarial Court System The adversarial court system is usually in favor of the party with the “strongest” defense team. However, this proved ironic in the Liebeck v McDonald’s case. McDonald’s refused to settle out of court after a court mediator’s recommendation to do so. McDonald’s relied on the adversarial court system to see it to victory in this case. McDonald’s is a multi-billion dollar company that can hire the best legal team in the world. McDonald’s thought that its legal team could prove that it was not liable for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. McDonald’s attempt to take advantage of America’s adversarial court system failed and cost McDonald’s over a half of a million dollars. Mrs. Liebeck’s legal team proved to be better in proving that McDonald’s was responsible for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries and prevailed in the adversarial court system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant has served as one of America’s most frivolous lawsuits of all time. However, this was not the case at all. Misconceptions by the media have caused this case to be sensationalized and landmarked under fictional pretenses. McDonald’s had the opportunity to settle out of court with Mrs. Liebeck for an immaterial amount of $20,000; however, McDonald’s arrogance, belief in America’s adversarial court system, and nonchalance for its customer’s welfare caused it to payout more than 25 times the original amount that Mrs. Liebeck requested. Before performing due diligence on this case, I believed that no one deserved $3 million for spilling coffee on him or herself. After researching this case, my belief remains unchanged. However, I learned that Mrs. Liebeck was not awarded $3 million and her judgment was necessary because of McDonald’s longstanding knowledge of the dangers of its hot coffee and its inaction to combat the problem. Because of the misconceptions about this case, Mrs. Liebeck is viewed as someone who took advantage of the legal system. In reality, McDonald’s decision to take this case to court and unwillingness to settle with Mrs. Liebeck, when it had made settlements of more than $500,000 ten years prior to this case, shows that McDonald’s was trying to take advantage of America’s adversarial court system, but it backfired.

Works Cited

"The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case." The Letric Law Library. 1995 - 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Adelman, Steven A. "The Modern Civil Justice System." Adelman Law Group. Adelman Law Group, PLLC, 2010 - 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.adelmanlawgroup.com/articles/justice-system.htm?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"Adversarial System." Princeton University. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Adversarial_system.html?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Bertram, Bonnie. "Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/booming/storm-still-brews-over-scalding-coffee.html?_r=1&>.
Cain, Kevin. "The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit." Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law: 14-19. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Carlson, Margaret. "Hot Coffee, Cold Cash and Torts: Margaret Carlson (Correct)." Bloomberg View. Bloomberg L.P., 14 July 2011. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2011-07-13/hot-coffee-cold-cash-and-the-tort-reform-con-margaret-carlson>.
"Coffee Clash: McDonald's Takes on Starbucks." NBC News11. Associated Press, 18 Nov. 2007. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837962/ns/business-us_business/t/coffee-clash-mcdonalds-takes-starbucks/?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Dedman, James M., IV. "Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants: The Original Coffee Product Liability Case." DRI Today. 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://dritoday.org/feature.aspx?id=661&_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Fuchs, Erin. "How A $2.9 Million Jury Verdict Over Spilled Coffee Became America's Most Misunderstood Story." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.businessinsider.com/retro-report-examines-stella-liebeck-case-2013-10?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Gerlin, Andrea. "How Hot Do You Like It?" The Wall Street Journal (1994): Sept. 1994. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case." Public Citizen. Public Citizen Inc., 30 Nov. 1999. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=785&_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction." Texas Trial Lawyers Association. Center for Justice & Democracy, 2002. Web. 07 July 2014. <https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts>.
"The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case." Consumer Attorneys of California. Consumer Attorneys of California. Web. 04 July 2014. <https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>.
Pfeifer, Stuart. "L.A. Woman Sues McDonald's over Hot Coffee, 20 Years after Huge Verdict." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 09 Jan. 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/09/business/la-fi-mo-la-woman-sues-mcdonalds-over-hot-coffee-20-years-after-huge-verdict-20140109?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Rakoczy, Christy. "The Arguments For and Against Tort Reform." The Legal Finance Journal. The Legal Finance Journal, 24 June 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://legalfinancejournal.com/the-arguments-for-and-against-tort-reform/>.
"The "Real" Stella." Stella Awards. N.p., 2002 -2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html>.
"Tort Reform Law & Legal Definition." Tort Reform Law & Legal Definition. U.S. Legal, 2001 - 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tort-reform/?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. According to Princeton University, “the adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law that relies on the contest between each advocate representing his or her party's positions and involves an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, trying to determine the truth of the case” (“Adversarial System”)
[ 2 ]. In actuality, Stella Liebeck received far less than $3 million. The actually amount will be disclosed later in the text.
[ 3 ]. Mrs. Liebeck was holding the cup of coffee between her knees because she was trying to add sugar and cream to her coffee.
[ 4 ]. Though only 6% of Mrs. Liebeck’s body suffered third-degree burns, 16% of her entire body was burned by the coffee spill.
[ 5 ]. Steven A. Adelman of the Adelman Law Group gives details on Mrs. Liebeck’s request for the small sum of money and also gives information on McDonald’s refusals to settle on numerous occasions
[ 6 ]. Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a post-verdict settlement because both parties attempted to appeal his verdict, and it would be easier to settle this case out of court.
[ 7 ]. According to Kevin G. Cain, contributor to the Journal of Consumer and Commercial Law, after the judge’s ruling, the two parties settled for approximately $600,000 (Cain, 17).
[ 8 ]. McDonald’s was found only 80% at fault for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries.
[ 9 ]. McDonald’s has paid out over $500,000 in damages related to its coffee burning customers. Mrs. Liebeck only requested $20,000 for injuries. Yet, McDonald’s ended up paying more than the $500,000 than it had previously paid in out-of-court settlements to Mrs. Liebeck.
[ 10 ]. McDonald’s sold a billion cups of year. Therefore, McDonald’s made at least $590 million dollars a year selling coffee at 49 cents a cup.
[ 11 ]. McDonald’s started selling iced coffee three years after Mrs. Liebeck’s untimely death.
[ 12 ]. According to USLEGAL.COM, “Tort reform commonly refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis which place limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that may be awarded in personal injury lawsuits” (“Tort Reform Law”).
[ 13 ]. A woman receiving $3 million for spilling coffee is a much better story line than a woman received approximately $500,000 after only requesting $20,000 in medical expense from McDonald’s.
[ 14 ]. McDonald’s had a strong belief that the courts would dismiss this case despite resounding evidence that there had been a history of coffee burning incidents and McDonald’s “admitted” to being at fault to these torts by settling out of court with previous customer