BUS 3305 – Business Law and Ethics

University of the People

Analyzing the Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Hot Coffee Case

The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case, often colloquially referred to as the

"McDonald's hot coffee case," is a lawsuit that has gained significant attention in the realm of

tort law and public opinion, sparking debate over the nature of product liability and consumer

safety. The case emerged in 1994 when Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, suffered third-

degree burns after spilling McDonald's coffee onto her lap (Burtka, n.d.). The lawsuit against the

fast-food giant led to a jury awarding Liebeck significant damages, a decision that stirred

controversy and turned the case into a flashpoint in the discussion over tort reform in the United

States. This essay aims to unpack the basis of Liebeck's claim, analyze the legal underpinnings of

the case, and delve into the jury's decision, and public reaction to the case.

The Basis of Liebeck's Claim and Nature of the Alleged Tort

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, seated as a passenger in a stationary car, accidentally

spilled a cup of coffee, purchased from a McDonald's drive-through, onto her lap (Enjuris, n.d.).

The spill resulted in severe third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and groin, leading to a

prolonged period of medical treatment, including hospitalization, skin grafting, and two years of

recovery (Burtka, n.d.). Liebeck's attorneys accused McDonald's of gross negligence for serving

coffee at a dangerously high temperature of 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), significantly hotter than

coffee served at other establishments (Burtka, n.d.).

The basis of Liebeck's claim against McDonald's was product liability, a type of tort claim. In

this context, strict liability means that a manufacturer or seller can be held liable if a product is

defective or unreasonably dangerous, regardless of whether they acted negligently or with intent

to harm (Lau & Johnson, 2011). In this case, Liebeck's lawyers argued that the coffee was
"unreasonably dangerous" because it was served at a temperature that could cause severe burns.

This argument falls under the doctrine of strict liability. However, elements of negligence were

also present in the case. The lawyers argued that McDonald's was aware of the risk (due to

hundreds of prior complaints about burns from hot coffee) but did not take sufficient action to

mitigate it (Carlson Law Firm, 2020). This could be seen as a failure to exercise the care that a

reasonably prudent person or corporation would exercise in like circumstances, which is the

definition of negligence (Lau & Johnson, 2011).

So, while the tort was not intentional, it was based on both negligence (McDonald's failure to

address the risk despite knowing about it) and strict liability (the coffee being unreasonably

dangerous).

The Liability of McDonald's

Liebeck's lawyers believed McDonald's was liable for her injuries due to a number of reasons.

First, McDonald's served coffee at a significantly higher temperature than other establishments, a

fact known to the company. At this temperature, spilled coffee could cause third-degree burns in

less than three seconds (Burtka, n.d.). Second, McDonald's had received more than 700 reports

of burn injuries from its coffee in the decade preceding Liebeck's accident but had not taken

action to lower the coffee's temperature or adequately warn customers of the risk(Carlson Law

Firm, 2020). Third, McDonald's refusal to pay more than $800 in response to Liebeck's request

for compensation for her medical expenses indicated a lack of acknowledgement of the severity

of the potential harm caused by its coffee (Burtka, n.d.).

The Reasonability of Expecting a Hot Drink to Cause Third-Degree Burns

While it is reasonable to expect a hot drink to be hot, it is not reasonable to expect that a hot

drink might quickly result in third-degree burns. McDonald's served its coffee at a temperature

that could cause third-degree burns in under three seconds (Burtka, n.d.).. This contrasts with

coffee served at a lower temperature by other establishments, which, while still capable of

causing third-degree burns, would take a significantly longer period of around 20 seconds to do

so (Enjuris, n.d.).. This additional time could allow a consumer to remove the hot liquid and

avoid serious injury. The severity of Liebeck's burns was a key factor in the case. Thus, it could

be argued that the severity of injury possible from McDonald's coffee was not within a

reasonable consumer's expectations.

The Verdict

The jury found McDonald's 80% responsible for the incident and awarded Liebeck $200,000 in

compensatory damages to cover medical expenses and $2.7 million in punitive damages, an

amount equivalent to two days of McDonald's coffee sales (Burtka, n.d.). The punitive damages

were designed to punish McDonald's for its actions and deter it and others from similar conduct

in the future. However, because they found her 20% at fault, the compensatory damages were

reduced to $160,000. The judge further reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Both parties

later appealed, and the case was ultimately settled for less than $600,000 (Enjuris, n.d.).

The jury's decision likely hinged on several factors. First, the evidence presented at the trial

showed that McDonald's was aware of the risk posed by the high temperature of their coffee,

having received more than 700 prior complaints. Yet, the company had not taken action to

address this issue. Second, the severity of Ms. Liebeck's injuries (third-degree burns covering

more than 16% of her body) and the subsequent medical treatments she required likely

influenced the jury's decision (Enjuris, n.d.). Furthermore, the punitive damages awarded can be
seen as a strong message to McDonald's and other corporations to prioritize customer safety over

other considerations.

Public Perception and Misinterpretation

The public perception of the case was largely shaped by media portrayals that focused on the

seemingly excessive damages awarded to Liebeck rather than the severe injuries she suffered and

the evidence of McDonald's negligence. Much of the public narrative omitted key details, such as

the severity of Liebeck's burns, McDonald's knowledge of the danger posed by its coffee, and the

fact that Liebeck was not driving or in a moving vehicle when the spill occurred (Burtka, n.d.).

The distorted narrative was often used to promote a tort reform agenda, aimed at limiting

consumers' ability to hold corporations accountable for their actions.

Conclusion

The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's case, when examined beyond the simplified and often

distorted public narrative, showcases a legal system functioning as it should, holding

corporations accountable for negligence that results in consumer harm. Liebeck's lawsuit was not

frivolous but rather a meaningful claim that resulted in the exposure of a dangerous corporate

policy and a rightful award for the severe injuries she suffered. The case underscores the

importance of accurate media reporting and critical public understanding of legal cases.

In the end, the "McDonald's hot coffee case" serves as a potent reminder that it is essential to

delve into the specifics of each case before forming an opinion. This is not only a matter of

fairness to the parties involved but also critical for informed public discourse on matters of law,

consumer safety, and corporate responsibility. The Stella Liebeck case also serves as a reminder

that the law is not always intuitive and that what may seem like a clear-cut situation can become
much more complicated when examined under the lens of legal principles and precedents. It is a

testament to the complexity of tort law and the importance of understanding the underlying

principles that guide our legal system. The case serves as a cautionary tale for corporations about

the importance of consumer safety and the potential consequences of ignoring known risks. For

consumers, it is a reminder of the potential dangers that can lurk in even the most mundane of

daily activities.
Reference

Burtka, A. T. (n.d.). Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The Hot Coffee Case. American Museum of Tort

Law. https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/

Carlson Law Firm. (2020). The Verdict: How the Hot Coffee Lawsuit Led to Tort Reform. The

Carlson Law Firm. https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/news-and-update/liebeck-v-mcdonalds

Enjuris. (n.d.). The Real Story Behind McDonald’s Infamous Hot Coffee Case.

https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit/

Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat

World Knowledge. https://my.uopeople.edu/pluginfile.php/1705461/mod_page/content/6/

LegalEthicalEnvironmentBusinessChapter07.pdf