Spilling the Beans on Hot Coffee

I believe the  infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case has spiraled into an urban legend.  While most urban legends are harmless and entertaining, this one can actually cause harm to the justice system and ultimately, the American public. The hot coffee case has become the poster child for tort reform based entirely on a lack of accurate information.  HBO released a documentary this summer entitled Hot Coffee which gave a persuasive,  one-sided view against tort reform.  I don’t endorse the entire film, but it did an excellent job of presenting the facts of the hot coffee case and the dangers of tort reform. The general public believes that an elderly lady spilled some coffee, which she should have known was hot, saw dollar signs and sued McDonald’s for millions.  I am here to spill the beans on the hot coffee case. Here are a few abbreviated facts about the case:

• Ms. Liebeck (the Plaintiff) was in the passenger seat of a  a parked car.
• McDonald’s required its stores to serve and hold coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Most establishments serve coffee at between 135 and 140 degrees.
• Serious burn hazards exist for food served above 140 degrees; third degree burns above 180 degrees.
•  Ms. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over 6 % of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, genitals and groin area. She  required skin grafting and was hospitalized for eight days.
• Ms. Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000 just to cover medical expenses,  but McDonald’s refused.
• Prior to Ms. Liebeck’s injury, more than 700  people were burned by McDonald’s coffee  and had filed claims or complaints.  Some claims involved third-degree burns very similar to Ms. Liebeck’s.

Now a few facts about the verdict:

• The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Ms. Liebeck 20 percent at fault.
• The jury also awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages.
• $2.7 million is what McDonald’s made in 2 days of coffee sales at the time.
• Post-trial investigation found McDonald’s had lowered its coffee temperature to around 150 degrees Fahrenheit. The trial court then reduced the punitive award to $480,000. (Less than half a day of coffee sales.)

The public innocently views the hot coffee case as a great example of frivolous litigation and a jury run wild.  With the facts in hand, I see the litigation as sound and the jury as level-headed. So, what is the problem with the American public misunderstanding the hot coffee case?  The problem is that the fame of this case is being used to tell the American public that the civil justice system is in need of reformation and to promote caps on the amounts of damages a jury can award.  Our Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury is in danger of being limited by legislation.  Follow the road that tort reform would take us down…the power of a jury would be limited by legislators, legislators are influenced by lobbyists, lobbyists are employed by large corporations that don’t want to pay out  settlements to consumers.  This version of tort reform only takes away the voice of the jury – that is you and me.  It just isn’t democratic. I hope  you will  seriously consider what tort reform is, who is selling it, and why they want it so badly.  We can’t afford to lose our voice.

Photo: By Nina Matthews Photography