Spilling the Tea: What Really Happened in the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit?

The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit Explained

In the 1990s, it was difficult to miss a newscast, comedian, or headline talking about a woman who sued McDonald’s for $2 million after SHE spilled coffee on herself. People were up in arms. Conversations started leaning toward the country being “sue crazy,” and people getting enraged by “frivolous lawsuits.”

But what really happened to Stella Liebeck in 1992? How much did she really sue McDonald’s for? And why did she win so much more than she even asked for?

In The Article

Myths That Too Many People Believe About the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit

With the social backlash after this case, it became difficult to know exactly what to believe. Several myths brought perceptive shortcomings to life as the court of public opinion condemned Stella Liebeck as a woman seeking a payday and portrayed McDonald’s as a victim.

Let’s take some time to clear up some of those myths now.

Myth: A Woman Spilled Some Coffee and Wanted to Sue McDonald’s

This myth grossly underemphasizes several elements of the case, but it also completely denies the steps that Stella Liebeck took before she and her attorney took McDonald’s to trial.

Here’s what really happened:

In 1992, Stella Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when they pulled into the McDonald’s drive-through in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She ordered a coffee for 49 cents. Upon receiving their order, Stella’s grandson pulled into a parking spot, so Stella could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The car didn’t have cupholders, so Stella rested the cup between her legs and opened it. When it opened, the coffee spilled into her lap.

After suffering from third-degree burns, spending eight days in the hospital, and requiring skin grafts, Liebeck wrote a letter to McDonald’s asking them to pay her medical bills, and additional damages, including loss of wages for her daughter, who had to take off work to care for Stella after she was released from the hospital. Her initial asking total for the damages was only $20,000.

McDonald’s countered with an $800 offer, a dollar amount that wouldn’t help Stella or her family to overcome the suffering they endured.

Myth: Stella Liebeck’s Burns Weren’t That Bad

This myth relies on people’s perceptions of hot coffee. Perhaps you have burned your tongue or even spilled something hot on your pants; maybe you’ve had a burn so bad, you got a blister on your lip (second-degree burn). If you only take into consideration your personal experience, it’s difficult to understand just how severe Liebeck’s burns really were.

Here’s what really happened:

Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body and first- or second-degree burns on 16% of her body. In reading this fact, you may think “oh, that’s bad,” but it’s important to understand just how severe third-degree burns really are.

Third-degree burns cause damage to all layers of the skin and can sometimes include the layers of fat and muscle that is under the skin. In most cases, third-degree burns cannot heal like other wounds, because there is nothing for the scar tissue to attach to. That is why most third-degree burns require skin grafts.

And, that’s just what happened to Stella Liebeck. She required skin grafts on her thighs and genitals.

Myth: Stella Liebeck Sued McDonald’s for $2 Million

Although Liebeck was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, she did not initially sue for that much. As a matter of fact, Liebeck didn’t want to sue McDonald’s at all. As stated above, Liebeck wrote McDonald’s a letter explaining her injuries and asking only for payment of her medical bills and smaller amounts for other damages including loss of wages for her daughter.

After McDonald’s offered Liebeck $800, Liebeck hired a personal injury attorney, and her lawsuit was then for $100,000 in compensatory damages and triple punitive damages, to enact change on the corporate standards of McDonald’s coffee temperature. In Liebeck’s mind, no one else should have had to suffer the way she did.

Myth: No One Complained About the Temperature of McDonald’s Coffee Before

Coffee is hot. Everyone knows it. No one ever complains that coffee is hot, right?

When the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case became national news and comedic fodder, many people truly believed that no one in America complained of coffee burns either directly to a McDonald’s staff member or to their corporate office before this case.

On the contrary, for more than 10 years before Liebeck suffered her extremely severe injuries, McDonald’s received more than 700 complaints and reports of scalding burns from customers. Some of these burns affected children and infants. Additionally, these complaints weren’t just of people who burned their lips and mouths when sipping the coffee. Some of these complaints included people reporting severe burns to their inner thighs, buttocks, and genital areas.

Here’s the kicker: Between 1982 and 1992, McDonald’s would settle with many personal injury cases that arose from these complaints. Why they chose to fight against a 79-year-old woman who simply wanted to recover from her damages, we don’t know, but an uproar followed throughout the country.

How Hot WAS the Coffee in the McDonald’s Lawsuit

McDonald’s corporate standards set the coffee temperature between 180 and 190 degrees. To put this into perspective, according to Public Citizen, “a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees.”

Despite the complaints about the temperature of their coffee, McDonald’s did nothing about it. According to FindLaw, “A McDonald’s Quality Control manager testified that McDonald’s knew the risk of dangerously hot coffee. The company had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers of the scalding danger.”

How Much Money Did the Lady Who Sued McDonald’s for Hot Coffee Get?

Though Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s for $100,000 in compensatory damages, a jury found that Liebeck was 20% at-fault for her burns. They also found that she suffered from $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20% (the amount she was deemed at-fault), so she was awarded a total of $160,000 in compensatory recovery.

In addition to compensatory damages, the jury found that McDonald’s “engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct,” and that punitive damages were necessary. Punitive damages are designed to be severe enough to punish the company doing the wrongful act, and they are meant to enact change. For this reason, the jury decided that the punitive damages would equal two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee sales, or $2.7 million.

IMPORTANT FACT: While the award for the punitive damages was over $2 million, there are other layers of the legal process that Stella Liebeck had to go through.

The judge in the case announced that that the final punitive damages award would be reduced to $480,000. Both Liebeck and McDonald’s appealed this decision.

However, before the appeals process could be complete, this case was settled out of court.

The final dollar amount in compensatory and punitive damages that Stella Liebeck was compensated for after the McDonald’s hot coffee spill is unknown.

What Changed After the McDonald’s Coffee Case?

Because this case included punitive damages in the state of New Mexico, the hope was to see active change by McDonald’s after it was settled. However, very little has changed.

McDonald’s still shows up as the defendant of personal injury lawsuits that arise from burns due to the temperature of their coffee.

Although a New York Times article in 2013 reported that McDonald’s now serve coffee between 170 and 180 degrees, some restaurants serve coffee that is up to 194 degrees.

Additionally, despite the Liebeck’s case not only holding water but also showing the gross negligence of the corporation, people still believe that her lawsuit was frivolous and that she received a $2 million payday.

What You Should Know About “Frivolous” Lawsuits

Many people believe that personal injury lawsuits are frivolous by nature, and anyone who was injured by a defective product or neglectful act by a greedy corporation is just looking for fast money.

In truth, a frivolous lawsuit is one lacking in merit, meant to harass a person or corporation. In Stella Liebeck’s case, she just wanted to be compensated for her injuries properly. This included punitive damages to force the company to make real change.

When you hear about a “frivolous lawsuit,” dig a little deeper to understand the facts of that case. Avoid believing every headline you read or every person with a podcast in cases like these. A lot of the court documents are available online, and you can see the facts of these cases before you define them as frivolous.

Most importantly, if you’ve been injured, don’t automatically assume that you have no rights. If you’re concerned about the stigma that surrounds personal injury lawyers and suing for damages, just know that large corporations and greedy insurance companies bank on that public perception.

If you’re unsure whether your New Mexico personal injury case holds water, contact Ron Bell Injury Lawyers today, and we’ll collect the facts of your case in order to give you a free case evaluation. Call 898-BELL to get started.

Other sources:

The McDonald’s Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction – FindLaw

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case Revisited in Starbucks Litigation

Where the law stands 30 years after a woman sued McDonald’s for spilling hot coffee : NPR

Legal Myths: The McDonald’s “Hot Coffee” Case – Public Citizen