Question

Please review the case of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's case.

1. Tell us what you think about the outcome.

2. Fair? Not fair?

3. discuss - duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages as they apply to this case.

4. Please also think about the jury system in the US. Should we do away with that?

5. What other interesting jury verdicts can you find on the internet and share it with us?

Please type in the answer no handwritten. Thank you!

Answer 1

The case of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's :

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

• By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
• Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
• McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
• From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
• Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
• At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
• Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;
• McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
• McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
• McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
• Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Moreover, 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.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.”

The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation, some called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", while others claimed it was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".

~ This case has been provided by the Center for Justice & Democracy, New York City.

Ans 1) Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere. Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Hence, i would like to agree with the outcome of the case with McDonald's being fined.

Ans 2) Fair

After getting hospitalized and burn treatment, Mrs. Liebeck spent six months attempting to convince McDonald's to pay $15,000 to $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonald's responded with a letter offering $800. Mrs. Liebeck also asked McDonald's to consider changing the excessive temperature of its coffee so others would not be similarly harmed, but they didn't care and did not realize how seriously it could burn customers. All McDonald's restaurants served coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. At this temperature, spilled coffee causes third degree burns in less than three seconds. Other restaurants served coffee at 160 degrees, which takes twenty seconds to cause third degree burns, which is usually enough time to wipe away the coffee. Hence, ignoring their functional flaw and thereby failure at granting minimal compensation to the victim cost McDonald's to pay a hefty compensation later.

Ans 3) Duty - It was McDonald's duty to warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk of serious burns from spilled coffee which was served at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. However, they did not do anything for it.

Breach - McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. However, they considered this number of burns as insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year. The jury noted that the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously and counting the victims as mere numbers.

Proximate cause - Most home coffee makers produce coffee that is between 135 and 150 degrees. Coffee that other restaurants serve at 160 degrees can also cause third-degree burns, but it takes 20 seconds, which usually gives the person enough time to wipe away the coffee before that happens. All McDonald's restaurants served coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. At this temperature, spilled coffee causes third degree burns in less than three seconds. This was enough proof for the jury to rule against the company's adamancy.

Damages - The jurors awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her pain, suffering, and medical costs, but those damages were reduced to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent responsible. They awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amounted to about two days of revenue for McDonald’s coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, while noting that McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000.

Ans 4) I suppose not. The jury system should remain as it is because of the following :

• Since a jury is comprised of ordinary members of the public, the verdicts are more likely to be deemed as acceptable by the rest of society
• Legal matters are decided by judges. Issues of fact are determined by the average person. It is a straightforward division of labor that seeks to balance facts with the law.
• When there is a large enough of a jury in place for a criminal proceeding, then the numbers help to cancel out the potential for bias.
• A jury trial is an important right of citizenship in the United States and many other democratic countries.