The truth about that ridiculous McDonalds coffee lawsuit case

selective focus photo of woman s hand holding out a mccafe cup of coffee

The McDonalds coffee lawsuit, most people use it as a sign of what’s wrong with America and what’s wrong with the current judicial system. A concern is that most people don’t know the facts of the case, or what happened during the trial. The case was a meme before memes existed. Today we will dispel the myths and rumors about the silly lady who thought it was a good idea to drive holding hot coffee between her legs.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald’s restaurant. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the lid so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. While removing the lid, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; and they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.

Liebeck was rushed to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for 8 days while she underwent skin grafting.

Stella sought to settle with Mcdonalds for $ 20,000 to cover her expenses. Mcdonalds counter offered for $800. Liebeck’s attorney tried to settle with Mcdonalds for $ 90,000 than $ 300,000, and a mediator even suggested $ 225,000 but McDonalds refused all settlement offers. Liebeck sued McDonald’s for “gross negligence” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.”

Those are the base facts of the case, that most people don’t know, but there are also a lot of false truths about the case that need to be uncovered.

Myth 1. Stella was driving when she spilled the coffee

         Stella was actually a passenger in a car with no cup holders. Her grandson was driving and parked the car while Stella was fixing her coffee. The spill occurred when the car was parked, and Stella wasn’t the driver.

 

Myth 2. Stella was reckless

           Liebeck’s attorney presented evidence at the trial that McDonalds had received over 700 reports of people burned by Mcdonalds coffee. McDonalds had settled claims for burn injuries, some for more than $ 500,000. They also presented evidence that coffee served at other stores in the area was at less 20 degrees F (11 degrees C) lower than what Mcdonalds served theirs at. Mcdonalds also conceded that their coffee would burn a customer’s mouth and throat if consumed when served at the temperature McDonalds serves its coffee. Because of these facts, the Jury found McDonald’s was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault.

 

Myth 3. Stella got paid millions

 The jury awarded Liebeck $ 200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to 160,000. In addition, the jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced the punitive damages to $ 480,000, making the total amount $ 640,000. Both parties eventually settled for an undisclosed amount less than $ 600,000.

 The Albuquerque Journal ran the headline “McDonalds scalding: woman burned by hot coffee gets $2.9 million.” Since most people don’t read beyond the headlines, they overlooked the most important facts, and the myths overshadowed the authentic story. The way most people understand the case is that McDonald’s was the victim, and Liebeck was the scheming, no good person looking to come up over her own negligence. If one looks at the facts I just presented you, that narrative is false.

 Since this case, Mcdonalds has not changed the serving temperature of its coffee. Mcdonalds relies on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam. The company continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.

 The New York Times published a retro report about the case 20 years later. In the article, the paper noted how the details of Liebeck’s story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide. The report underscored that the narrative of the story was distorted in the media, in which the “condensed telling of the story created its own version of the truth.”

 People’s perception of this case reminds me of the children’s game Telephone. The game is where a person at the front tells a story, and it gets repeated from person to person. By the time the story gets to the last person, it’s usually totally different from what the first person said. In reality, this case was used as a shining example for a need for tort reform. 

  Corporations push the tort reform effort to cut back on the judgement amounts leveled against them in lawsuits. This effort worked great, as people have sided with corporations over an everyday ordinary person. The truth is, some corporations act badly. In their push for more profits, they consider the collateral damage done to humans as a casualty of war. We should justly punish this type of thinking and actions when warranted. Corporations shouldn’t get slaps on the wrists for unacceptable behavior.

 There are many lessons in this story, but the main one is that when you see or hear a narrative being pushed by the media, it’s usually not what it appears and there is some alternative reasoning or agenda behind the push.

Leave a Reply