I just ran across this description of the case (circa 1996) and this
corresponds to what a judge said about it a couple of years ago when I
was on a jury trial.
**********
The following courtesy of the Consumers Attorneys of California:
There is a lot of hype about the McDonald's scalding coffee case. No one
is in favor of frivolous cases or outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonald's coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and
muscle. Here is the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonald's.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the
cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the
cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into
her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck 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. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's
refused.
During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety
ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at
substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally
135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonald's 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 McDonald's had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
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 McDonald's coffee
sales.
Postverdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 or
three times compensatory damages even though the judge called McDonald's
conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the
parties entered a postverdict settlement.