‘But Coffee’s Supposed to be Hot’ – A Retrospective

In “frivolous lawsuit” conversations, the McDonald’s hot coffee case is frequently spotlighted — incomplete facts, and mistaken distortions and key omissions of fact skew public perception.

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, a passenger in her grandson’s car, purchased coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru. Upon exiting the drive-thru, her grandson stopped in the parking lot so she could add sugar to her coffee. The cup tipped over between her legs as she was removing the lid, and 190-degree coffee spilled onto her lap. Liebeck suffered severe burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas that necessitated a hospital stay, painful wound-cleaning procedures, and skin grafts.

Liebeck filed a claim against McDonald’s, contending the coffee was dangerously hot, and offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover medical expenses. McDonald’s countered with $800. The case went to trial.   At trial, it was demonstrated that the McDonald’s operations manual required its employees to serve coffee at 180°–190°F, which can cause near-immediate scalding. Recommended serving temperatures are in the 130°–150°F range, giving spill victims a roughly 5-second escape hatch from severe burns.
Equally damning, it was revealed that over 700 complaints, claims, and suits had been filed against McDonald’s in the prior 10 years over the same issue. McDonald’s changed nothing — didn’t even print warning labels.

Liebeck’s $200,000 damages award was reduced to $160,000 since she was found 20% at fault. The judge cut the jury’s $2.7 million punitive damages award to $480,000. Upon the defendant’s appeal, a confidential settlement amount was reached.

Truly frivolous lawsuits rarely take flight. Judges can immediately dismiss cases that have no basis in law. Personal injury attorneys can be sanctioned for squandering a court’s time and taxpayer money. And attorneys don’t get paid unless they win their cases. Frivolous cases don’t tend to be winners.