The controversial Liebeck V McDonald’s Corporation case, also known as “The McDonald’s coffee case,” involved Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico. In February 1992, she took legal action against McDonald’s after suffering severe third-degree burns from their coffee product. Accompanied by her grandson, Mrs. Liebeck visited a local McDonald’s drive-thru and requested a cup of coffee. While adding sweeteners and creamer to her drink, Mrs. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and tried to remove its lid.
Mrs. Liebeck’s lap was drenched with coffee after she removed the lid, causing the scorching liquid to stay in contact with her skin as it seeped into her sweatpants. As a result, she suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her body and had to undergo skin grafting and an eight-day hospital stay. After being discharged from the hospital, Mrs. Liebeck underwent two years of treatment. While negotiating a settlement with McDonald’s corporation, she asked for $20,000 to cover her medical costs; nevertheless, the corporation only proposed $800.
After McDonald’s declined to increase their offer, Mrs. Liebeck initiated legal proceedings. It emerged during the trial that McDonald’s mandates franchises to serve coffee at temperatures ranging from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. At this level of heat, the coffee can cause third-degree burns within two to seven seconds. McDonald’s representatives were interrogated about the coffee and acknowledged that customers were unaware of its extreme temperature, leaving them susceptible to severe burns. Furthermore, they admitted that McDonald’s had not alerted patrons to this risk and failed to provide any explanation for the absence of such a warning.
The witnesses affirmed that McDonald’s did not have any intention of lowering the temperature of the coffee. Comprehensive records from the corporation revealed that over the span of 1982-1992, more than 700 individuals suffered burns of varying degrees. These incidents subsequently led to further legal actions. Thus, it is evident that the corporation was fully cognizant of the potential harm their served coffee could inflict upon customers. In the course of the legal process, McDonald’s disclosed that they maintained the coffee at a temperature ranging between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit to ensure optimal taste. Additionally, they admitted to not considering any safety consequences at this temperature.
The coffee served at McDonald’s is much hotter than coffee served at home and other establishments, typically around 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit. Moreover, the Quality Assurance Manager for McDonald’s confirmed that any food or beverage served at 140 degrees or above poses burn hazards, and pouring the coffee at that temperature into a Styrofoam cup would make it unfit for consumption as it would burn the mouth and throat. The manager acknowledged that burns would happen but stated that McDonald’s had no plans to lower the coffee temperature.
The plaintiffs’ expert, who specializes in thermodynamics and its application to human skin burns, stated that if liquids are at a temperature of 180 degrees, it would take only a few seconds for them to cause full thickness burns on the skin. Other testimonies indicated that a liquid at a temperature of 155 degrees would not cause such severe burns, as it would have had time to cool. If Mrs. Liebeck had been given coffee at 155 degrees, she would not have suffered such grave injuries. McDonald’s counter-argued that customers who purchase coffee in the drive-thru usually plan to consume it once they reach their destination. Research has shown that customers typically consume the coffee while driving.
The incident resulted in McDonald’s being found partially responsible, with Mrs. Liebeck also deemed 20% at fault. Initially, compensatory damages were set at $200,000 but reduced to $160,000 due to her partial responsibility. Furthermore, the jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages; however, the trial court later lowered this amount to $480,000. In total from the trial, she received a compensation of $640,000.
Both parties appealed the decision and eventually settled for an undisclosed amount close to the initial recovery of $640,000.
The court based its decision on an examination of the case’s facts and consideration of the severity of Mrs. Liebeck’s injury.
Tort remedies have evolved to protect individuals from physical, mental, and financial harm due to public policy incentives. These remedies also act as an economic encouragement for businesses and individuals to avoid actions that may harm others. In this scenario, the tort was not deliberate but instead a consequence of negligence. McDonald’s Corporation has a duty to exercise reasonable care towards their customers, employees, and business affairs. Despite being aware of the coffee’s potential harm, McDonald’s neglected to implement necessary precautions like lowering the temperature or displaying warning signs, thus demonstrating negligence.
The court determined that Mrs. Liebeck was partially responsible for the incident, as she should have exercised more caution and awareness regarding the hot temperature of the coffee, although she did not expect it to be extremely hot. The defendant attempted to use contributory negligence as a defense but failed to establish Mrs. Liebeck’s exclusive responsibility. Consequently, the case introduced comparative negligence, allowing an injured plaintiff to seek damages corresponding to the defendant’s degree of liability.
The court held the defendant and Mrs. Liebeck accountable for their negligence, thereby establishing their liability. This decision is expected to deter corporations from disregarding customer safety and well-being. The financial repercussions in terms of compensation payments serve as a motivator for companies and individuals to implement precautionary measures such as displaying signs, issuing warning labels, and promoting public awareness regarding potential hazards. As a result, there is apprehension that certain individuals may intentionally seek harm in order to pursue monetary recompense.
It is unethical, but some individuals may still attempt it. If the court had ruled against Mrs. Liebeck, holding her responsible, McDonald’s would have had less incentive to reduce the temperature of their coffee or to warn the public to exercise caution. By prioritizing customer care standards over profit alone, businesses could prevent causing harm to people and minimize the risk of lawsuits. This approach would likely result in increased business, as customers prefer to engage with trustworthy individuals who genuinely care about their well-being as customers.
In order to improve customer satisfaction, businesses should be more careful and reduce negligence. After carefully examining the case, I now agree with the court’s decision. At first, I thought that Mrs. Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself because she was in a rush to go to work and became upset. However, after taking a closer look at the facts, it is clear that Mrs. Liebeck is not at fault for this incident. She was not driving the car at the time; in fact, the car was not moving at all. Additionally, McDonald’s served coffee that was extremely hot without any warning labels indicating its high temperature.
Liebeck was unaware that if she had only tasted the coffee without attempting to add cream, she could have suffered severe burns to her mouth and throat, potentially even worse than the injuries she sustained. It is justifiable for McDonald’s to be held responsible for covering her medical expenses and other forms of compensation. This lawsuit sparked a nationwide debate and highlighted the necessity for tort reform. Presently, websites grant “Stella Awards” to mock seemingly excessive or frivolous lawsuits. This case serves as a reminder that individuals must take responsibility for their actions.
