Texas Tort Law Reform

On February 27, 1992, an elderly woman named Stella Liebeck ordered a coffee from a McDonald’s drive thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico (Rosenfeld). Liebeck, who was a passenger in her grandson’s car that day, proceeded to prepare her coffee with cream and sugar while holding it between her legs due to a lack of cupholders or flat surface to place it on. Liebeck accidentally spilled the coffee on her thighs and groin area and suffered third degree burns over 16 percent of her body, in less than three seconds, due to the coffee’s 190 °F temperature (Torres-Burtka). After McDonald’s refused to settle with Liebeck, she sued the company for negligence and product liability (Rosenfeld). Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensation for her medical expenses and pain and suffering, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages (Torres-Burtka). The compensation was significantly reduced to due to an 80/20 fault finding, and the parties ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount (Torres-Burtka). The controversial case received widespread coverage and was portrayed as yet another reason to approve tort law reform.

A documentary created by Susan Saladoff, Liebeck’s attorney, explains how the Liebeck case, along with similar cases, were used “unfairly” as examples of frivolous and overcompensated lawsuits and reasoning behind a need for change in tort laws (Saladoff). Reform supporters pushed for the following changes: (1)

1. limit punitive damages and increase burden of proof to include malice and not just gross negligence,
2. limit liability of each party when there was more than one defendant,
3. prevent venue shopping for plaintiff-friendly judges by restricting filings to geographical area in which the incident occurred, and
4. laying burden of proof of knowingly performing a deceptive acts on the plaintiff (Newell et al. 344).

Ultimately, the changes made to tort laws were as follows:

1. punitive damages were limited to the greater of $200,000 or two times the economic damages plus $75,000,
2. defendants would be liable for all damages only after being found more than 50 percent responsible for the incident, with a two defendant limit per case,
3. suits could only be filed in the geographical area in which incidents occurred,
4. plaintiffs who filed suit against hospitals or physicians were required to pay a $5,000 bond, which was forfeited if the claim was found baseless, and
5. plaintiff punishment was permitted if found guilty of filing frivolous suits (Newell et al. 345).

In the midst of all the changes, the question remains – who are the true winners and losers of the tort reform? The losers, according to defense attorney Rob Roby, are the people who have been wronged but do not have enough income or proof of future income to receive economic damage compensation, such as stay-at-home parents, children, and the elderly (Carter). Due to the cap that tort reform placed on punitive and non-economic damages, cases that do not qualify for substantial economic damages are deemed too costly to pursue by many personal injury attorneys (Carter). Consequently, people who have legitimate personal injury cases but do not have substantial earnings are underrepresented or not represented at all. The winners, according to Roby, are corporations, medical institutions, and physicians and other medical professionals, who became more protected and less careful as a result of tort reform (Carter).

Undoubtedly, the reform has brought many changes to the legal system, including some which are considered negative. Nonetheless, one must consider the scenarios under which cases like Liebeck’s happened. These cases show that responsibility for avoiding injuries lies on both a company and a consumer. If a coffee feels hot to the touch, why remove the lid to prepare it instead of keeping the lid on and waiting for it to cool down? As serious as Liebeck’s injuries were, the initial compensation awarded in the case seems excessive for an incident that could have been prevented equally by both parties. Perhaps the compensation would be appropriate if McDonald’s had sold Liebeck a hot coffee without a lid. While the Liebeck case resulted in changes, in both McDonald’s coffee cup warning labels and its brewing temperature policies, it also made it easier for the tort reform to be pushed by supporters.

When considering medical malpractice victims who lose as a result of tort reform, one must also consider that the healthcare system is utterly broken with issues beyond malpractice lawsuits. While medical professionals are responsible for their actions, without protections in place simple oversights can be extremely costly to an individual party. One must question who is really at fault for errors made unintentionally and without malice or purposeful negligence. After all, many healthcare professionals work for larger corporations, which are often understaffed and overloaded with patients, and are seldom given enough time to properly recuperate between long and tedious work shifts. These individuals often risk their license and credibility as a result of a poor work environment and variables beyond their control. In the most ridiculous instances, the possibility exists for medical professionals to be sued for performing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and saving a life in the process (Broken Ribs). It is not difficult to see why protection for medical professionals is absolutely necessary.

In short, not all the changes resulting from tort reform have been bad. Nevertheless, perhaps tort laws should be revised to ensure that legitimate cases get the attention they deserve, while still providing protection for both the plaintiff and the defendant equally. Special attention should be paid to instances involving personal liability cases as opposed to instances involving large corporations. The beauty of the United States legal system is that laws are not set in stone and they can be amended at any time as public opinion and issues being considered evolve.

Works Cited

1. “Broken Ribs Caused by CPR, Can You Sue?” Maggiano Law, www.maggianolaw.com/if-cpr-causes-broken-ribs-can-you-sue/.
2. Carter, Terry. “Tort Reform Texas Style.” ABA Journal, Oct. 2006, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/new_laws_and_med_mal_damage_caps_devastate_plaintiff_and_defense_firms_alik.
3. Newell, Charldean, et al. Texas Politics. 12th ed., WADSWORTH Cengage Learning, 2012.
4. Rosenfeld, Jonathan. Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The Hot Coffee Controversy. Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC, 11 May 2015, www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/news/liebeck-v-mcdonalds-the-hot-coffee-controversy/.
5. Saladoff, Susan. “Hot Coffee.” Tubi, 2011, tubitv.com/movies/310498/hot_coffee.
6. Torres-Burtka, Allison. “Liebeck v. McDonald’s.” The American Museum of Tort Law, 21 Sept. 2018, www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/.