Stella Liebeck's Remains In 205 Degree Fuse

On February 27, 1992, In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Stella Liebeck and her grandson went to the local McDonalds to get breakfast. The grandson Chis was driving his 1989 Ford Probe with his grandmother Stella sitting in the passenger seat. Chris's car did not have cup holders so Stella had to put the cup of coffee in between her knees in order to add cream and sugar. During this process, Stella spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Stella received third-degree burns to her groin, buttocks and thighs resulting from the scalding coffee. Stella was taken to the hospital where she stayed for over a week and underwent skin graphing treat the burns. Worst of all, as if suffering third-degree burns wasn't enough, Stella was partially disabled
for about two years after the incident. Mrs. Liebeck wanted McDonalds to cover her medical bills and her daughters lost income she forfeited by taking time off work to take care of Stella Liebeck. The medical expenses plus lost income added up to about $20,000, which is what Liebeck thought, would be a fair settlement. McDonalds counter offer was no more than $800, which didn’t even cover half of Liebeck’s medical expenses, so the case went to trial. On August 18, 1994, a twelve-person jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. After the judge decided to reduce the damages, Liebeck, as well as McDonalds, then appealed the decision in December 1994 even though this case was settled out of court for under $600,000.

III. Was McDonalds liable for Liebeck’s injuries?

In product liability cases, a person may recover compensation through the seller or manufacturer based on strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. For this particular case, Liebeck’s attorney was arguing that McDonalds was at fault of a strict liability claim. Strict liability allows an individual who was injured by a defective or unexpectedly hazardous product to recover reimbursement from the maker or seller of the product, without the need of showing that the manufacture or seller was actually acting irresponsible. To make a strict liability claim, a person would have to argue that all three aspects of strict liability exist. According to the Texas Trial Lawyers Association the facts of the case provided by Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan is: “McDonalds sells its coffee at 180 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal taste according to McDonalds corporate specifications. Coffee at that current temperature could cause third degree burns in two seconds”(The Original Hot Coffee Product Liability Case, Gwblawfirm.com). In this case of product liability, McDonalds claimed it had nothing to do with Liebeck spilling the coffee on her. However the jury found that McDonalds was liable for the dangerous temperature the coffee was sold at. My issue with this is coffee is a product that is known to be served hot and to be handled carefully. Regardless if the temperature of the coffee was served at a lower temperature, it would have still caused injury to Liebeck.
Liebeck took the risk herself when she placed the hot coffee in between her legs. Restaurants all around the world serve coffee that is hot enough to cause injury if one was
careless and spilled the coffee on them.
The National Coffee Association advises that coffee should be brewed at 195 to 205 degree Fahrenheit for the ideal extraction and served at 180 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit. The law firm of Gallivan, White and Boyd gave their opinion that “Just because a product can cause serious injury when handled negligently doesn’t not mean that product is unreasonably dangerous when and if used properly” (The Original Hot Coffee Product Liability Case, Gwblawfirm.com). I believe the severity of Liebeck’s injuries and her old age is what made the jury feel sympathetic and side against McDonalds restaurants. Liebeck argued that there was no warning label on the McDonalds coffee cup to inform the customer. However on McDonalds promotional poster and on their website there was sample picture that showed “Caution: Contents Hot” in an orange text on the cup. In my opinion I do not think McDonalds should have been held accountable for Liebeck acting careless with hot coffee. However, McDonalds should have covered Liebeck’s medical expenses out of good faith since they could easily afford it. McDonalds sending Liebeck for $800, which didn’t even cover half of her medical bills, displays McDonalds lack of concern and sympathy for Liebeck’s horrendous injury. Even worse, from 1982 to 1992, McDonalds coffee has burned more than 700
people and according to a witness. It is also noted that during this case that a McDonalds witness testified that McDonalds has “no current plan to change the way their coffee is made”. According to the Texas Trial Lawyers Association article on this case, it was said by a McDonalds representative that “the coffee was not fit for consumption” because of the severe scalds that can occur if spilled or drunk. Also found it the article it said “The Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit” (McDonalds Hot Coffee Case, TTLA.com). It should be common sense to customers that when they purchase hot coffee it needs to be handled with caution. Especially when you see a person drinking a hot cup of coffee they blow on the hot liquid to cool down before each sip since it is universally know that coffee is hot. Under strict liability I do not think McDonalds was liable for the injury. Yes I will agree that the temperature of the coffee was “unreasonably dangerous” and did injure Liebeck. However, the product was not used in a manner as intended even though the defect (i.e. the hot liquid) did injury Liebeck. My argument would be completely different if there was no warning label and Liebeck suffered an injury while drinking the hot coffee which is what it is intended to be used for. All three conditions of strict liability must be met for McDonalds to be liable for damages.