I saw a interview on TV with this plaintiff and lawyer. Allot of it came under product liability. The problem was the women was seeking McDonald's to pay the medical bills and nothing else. She need repair surgery and skin grafts. It was McDonalds or the franchise owner refused any help and pretty much was laughing it off. So she had to go to court.
Unfortunately misconceptions about the McDonalds coffee burn lawsuit are cited as an example of a ridiculous law suits. If you read the facts of the case, you will see it was very justified.
As stated above, all she wanted was for McDonalds to pay her $20K medical bills. But after hearing the facts of the case, the jury decided to add the $2.7 million in punitive damages to motivate McDonalds to address this very common, on-going burn hazard (over 700 customers reported burns, plus thousands of employees burned from their way too hot coffee, and over $500K paid out in prior suits)
Here are the facts of the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Excerpt:
- Critics FALSELY claim Liebeck was driving at the time she spilled the coffee - Not true - her nephew was driving and he had pulled over and STOPPED while she attemped to add cream and sugar to the coffee.
- As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
- She suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.
- She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (removal of dead tissue).
- During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).
- She was disabled for an additional two years of medical treatment following the spill.
- She sought to settle her claim for just the amount of her Hospital bills, $20,000, but McDonalds refused, offering only $800.
- McDonalds requires its coffee be between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit. Scalding (capable of 3rd degree burns) starts around 140.
- Other establishments sell coffee generally around 135 to 140 degrees.
- McDonalds own expert testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
- and he testified that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
- The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
- McDonalds also refused to put "burn hazard" warnings on their cups.
- from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
- Thousands of McDonalds employees have also been burned by the coffee.
- McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that
this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.
- He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had
more pressing dangers to warn about.
- The plaintiffs argued that Appleton
conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
- The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill.
- The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals
about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
- The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages (about 8 hours of coffee sales) -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.