OT: The Stella Liebeck v McDonald's Coffee Cup Case

As some here have heard, I teach this case as an introduction to my Business Law class. It gives a great start to exposure as a business owner, and concepts like reasonable person standard, comparative negligence v contributory negligence, compensatory damages v punitive damages, discovery concepts, trial procedure, appellate procedure, post-trial remedies, and a host of other things.

And I enjoy a challenge. Most of my students are pretty hard-core about how abusive that lawsuit was. At least, prior to learning certain facts.

I would highly recommend a documentary that is on Amazon Prime, "Hot Coffee." It is worth it to see the perceptions, and then actual trial testimony, and evidence. When you see the McDonald's Quality Assurance Manager testify, with a smirk on his face, that people "better not" drink McDonald's coffee because it would burn their throat if it went down at the franchisor-required temperature of 180-190°, it will blow your mind. When he says he was happy to learn that there weren't more than 700 people already injured by McDonald's too-hot coffee, it'll irritate you.

Then when you look at the pictures.

WARNING... These are graphic. Very graphic.

As you may know, Ms. Liebeck suffered third degree burns over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, groin area, etc. She almost died. She was in the hospital for eight days, requiring three surgeries, skin graft procedures, etc.

WARNING...These are graphic. Very graphic. I can't stress this enough.

This is Ms. Liebeck in the hospital. Please don't get mad at me. I have some more comments after I display these photos.

Attachment 8042


Attachment 8044



Attachment 8043

In addition to McDonald's testifying that it was too hot for human consumption at that temperature, and that they knew they had hurt people over 700 times, and that they had no intention of lowering the temperature of the coffee, and in addition to them testifying that they had never done a study to see if the coffee was safe, they testified that the reason they cooked it at that temperature was because people intended to take the coffee from the McDonald's restaurant, drive to their home or office (regardless of whether they bought it to go or not), and that they wanted the temperature to be drinking temperature 30 minutes later, not when it was served.

Except they also testified that they did market research, and proved they were lying, because their market research indicated that people intended to consume it right away after purchase.

Now, Ms. Liebeck was partially responsible. It is interesting to see the jurors talk about it. She was a passenger in a parked car, and she--and her grandson--were putting together their food and drink for their McDonald's breakfast--and since the car didn't have a cupholder, she made the cardinal error (I love saying "cardinal error," for juvenile reasons) of sticking it between her knees to put in cream and sugar. When it spilled, that was all she wrote, and these massive injuries occurred.

Oh--I forgot that the case also allowed me to teach the concept of subrogation as well, as the first monies awarded go back to the insurance company to repay them for the medical payments they made for her care. When it was all said and done, the $200,000 compensatory damage award--reduced to $160,000 because of Ms. Liebeck's 20% comparative negligence--and the $2.7 million of punitive damages (two days worth of coffee sales)--reduced to $480,000 by the judge post-trial--and then the confidential settlement, believed to approximate the amount of the medical bills, which is all that Ms. Liebeck wanted in the first place--makes a whole lot more sense.

And McDonald's offer was $800 to settle this case.

Anyway, I have fun with it. There are a lot more facts that I'm just skimming the surface on, especially focused on the testimony.

Oh--post-judgment, they checked and learned the McDonald's restaurant had reduced the holding temperature to 158 degrees. I have done my own independent tests, and learned that my home Black and Decker coffee maker cooks at around 160, my Keurig at around 168, and the local McDonald's at 170.

And believe it or not, the difference between 180-190 (PROBABLY closer to 190, if I'm guessing) and 170 is massive when it comes to limiting injuries.

OMG, next we're going to try to fix a Palm Pilot. ;)

Seriously, just kidding, but I do remember you and I and others having a LONG, I mean LONG thread on this in the years gone by.

And I will now admit, despite my concerns about giving you the big head, that you have largely persuaded me in this case. I think maybe I got there in that thread, but I've actually thought about this case many times over the years as I do think it's a great case to look at liability, negligence, and corporate behavior in general.

And I do still think there are a ton of cases where people have won suits against companies where they were just ignorant and dangerous, and it wasn't the fault of the product.

But in this case IMO McDonald's has some nails in their coffin:

1) They have known people were getting hurt long term. There's something disconcerting about knowing there is a problem and not even putting a warning sticker over the sippy part of the lid to warn people they aren't to drink it for 30 minutes. Warning them it's hot and dangerous no, that's catering to fools, but warning them it's even hotter than normal coffee, that's maybe an argument.

2) Their stated case for running that risk and taking that damage was b/c the coffee wasn't to be consumed at that time, but they provide containers clearly designed to be drunk right then. If they know it's dangerous and it's done for a legit reason, shouldn't it be packaged in a way so as to address the risk and still provide that product? Basically it needs a vessel that won't spill super easy or let people drink it right away without acknowledging it's not drinkable initially, etc. That goes back to at least my idea of a sticker over the lid drink area.

3) The big one for me is that there honest to goodness seems to be no basis for their contention they need to serve the coffee hot, either due to market demand or any other reason. I'm left wondering why they do it if they know it has caused injuries and it's questionable if it's even a desired feature of the product. I'm sure it is for some, but clearly they know it's not all or even the large majority, and that means they KNOW a ton of those people are risking injury b/c they won't be drinking or otherwise handling the coffee in 30 minutes but will do so while it's knowingly hazardous.

Now I don't know if 170 is vastly better than 180 or 190 or whatever, and if it was being served at 170 while your Keurig is at 170 then if she spills coffee down herself that's really not on them.

And I do believe it's a partial liability situation. McD's is not fully culpable for all damages that come from putting piping hot coffee between your legs, nor IMO are they required to provide stainless steel sealed vessels to protect people from being foolish.

And that's the rub: people aren't against companies being responsible, they're against requiring all sorts of hoops to deal with the fact that some people are just idiots or do dumb things.

But McD's is responsible IMO for the difference in damage caused from her putting 170 degree coffee down her lap and putting 190 degree coffee down her lap.

That's probably not the full cost of her bills, but it's probably a lot more than $800.

At least that's one angle I now take on it. But then I think about people suing b/c they used their mower as a hedge trimmer and I start to waffle, lol.

Quote:

---

I start to waffle

---

Well thsres yer problem Supposed to make a waffle with a waffle iron not a hedge trimmer, but a word to the wise, that there waffle iron gets dang hot and under no circumstances should it be placed between ones legs.

Lol.

I will run across my Palm Pilot one day and try to restore it. I will likely need to have a source for batteries..and soldering. I have the screw extraction kit.

The worst part of that was that my PayPal account that I had to use for the four one dollar screws came out of a closed bank account, so by the time it was all finished, the screws alone were something like $60. Man, what a disaster that was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

Well thsres yer problem Supposed to make a waffle with a waffle iron not a hedge trimmer, but a word to the wise, that there waffle iron gets dang hot and under no circumstances should it be placed between ones legs.

---

I saw a guy make a P38 can opener out of a saw blade on YouTube at lunch today. That was cool. Of course, you can buy them for like 50 cents.