Liebeck v. McDonalds
Background
In 1992, Stella Liebeck went through a drive-through at McDonald's and ordered a cup of hot coffee. When she removed the lid to add cream and sugar, the coffee spilled and caused 3rd-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (1).
How did this happen? What happened during the pretrial and the process of obtaining a settlement? And how did this case set a precedent over holding corporations responsible for the rights/safety of consumers?
Before Ms. Liebeck even filed her lawsuit, she asked for compensation for her medical bills of $11,000, which later increased to $90,000. In return, McDonald offered nothing more than $800 for the debridement . On January 21, 1994, the defendants moved for summary judgment and the motion was denied. A hearing was conducted on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Then on July 29, 1994, Judge Scott denied the Plaintiff’s motion as to liability. As we have read from M&M, Judges often use pretrial conferences to facilitate or even force settlement discussions as a case nears trial. That’s what Judge Robert Hayes Scott alot
Trial
The case went to court and after seven days of evidence, testimony, and arguments of counsel, The jury found that McDonald’s was liable on
Aftermath
When word of this case went mainstream, there were misconceptions that frivolous cases could allow an individual to manipulate the legal system. Ms. Liebeck’s intent, however was to hold big corporations accountable for the injuries of their consumers. That McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably dangerous because it was excessively hot (4). In the media’s attempt to condense the case, new versions of the truth began to arise and villanize
Question
Even if a product was not handled properly, does it give corporations a pass if their product is dangerous and could potentially injure someone when and if used
I like this case. I almost did my blog post on this case as well with a slightly different spin focusing on the high amount of award she was given. So i think you did a great job on this perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think the way the case was handled with finding fault 20% of her was a good way to handle this case. I recall this case when it first came out and the jokes on late night and how it still is rediculed as frivolous to this day. But as i read the details of the case it becomes more evident for the msot part it was handled correctly.
I do believe if a product is not handled correctly corporations should not be held liable unless it's extreamly dangerous. But in this situation while she did partially fail to handle the cofee correctly we also have to understand acidents will happen, and that if this coffee was of normal temp she would not likly have had the phsyical damages she sustained. This is where i think Mcdonalds is ultimately responsible and had to pay out. Besides having terrible food they created a more dangerous situation by having the coffee unreasonably warm. This changed the amount of liability from her to them ultimately as they didn't take proper precautions on their end.Soholding her 20% liable and them the rest i think was fair and not frivolous.
While i take issue with the tendency to award such high punitive damages they also refused to take early responsibility so maybe it was needed to be high to get their attention.
Ethan, I have to disagree with your comment on the punitive damage award. I this case, McDonald was Well aware their company policy was resulting in injury. They had even settled claims with other individuals. But they didn't fix the problem. They continued supporting the same policies and actually tried to short change Ms. Leibeck. I believe McDonald's Deserved a penalty, or they would have kept injuring more people. This is one of the few times I recommend punitive damages.
DeleteGreat post. I remember this case and the publicity it caused. On some levels, I think these types of lawsuits are the price of doing business. Anytime you are dealing with a business that has direct contact with the public, then you will be potentially open for legal problems. It will always be a grey area when mitigating through client ignorance, company liability, and managing consumer perception as it relates to lawsuits. Big business is always a target for individuals looking for a check.
ReplyDeleteCain, I agree that the businesses that have direct contact with the public are more at risk for those legal issues. And the businesses that have direct contact with the public and deep pockets are definitely an easy target for lawsuits.
DeleteI've never heard of this case, but found it really interesting. I think the jury did a good thing by showing the Ms. Liebeck had a percentage of the blame because she spilled the coffee on herself. I also think it was good on Ms. Liebeck to show McDonald's where the weaknesses are in their products (i.e. now they have warnings on their cups as a sort of CYA). And I really want to know what happened behind those closed doors, too.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about this case, I too thought it was a frivolous lawsuit until I did some research beyond the headlines and late night jokes.
DeleteMs. Liebeck was taken to a hospital where is was determined she had suffered third degree burns and ended up requiring a three week hospital stay after losing 20% of her body weight along with a skin graft. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. McDonald's only offered her $800.
It was then that she hired an attorney. And it was the jury that came up with the $2.7 million dollar figure based on the two day sales of McDonald's coffee. However, in the end Ms. Liebeck ended up with less than $600,000 and of that I am sure a fair amount went to attorney's fees.
The point here is if the product was handled correctly. In general, the chance of spilling the coffee on oneself in the car is not a stretch or something that would be considered an unpractical miuse. When I think of a product as being handled incorrectly, I think of the man that lit a firecracker off his head or someone consuming laundry detergent. In the end this case was not about frivolity, but instead about a large corporation dismissing the legitimate claims of a consumer based on their own deep pockets. I think this case has been misconstrued as one of the poster children of frivolous lawsuits when in fact it should be held up as the a case of justice against corporations dismissing consumers rights in reasonable foreseeable misuse.
I think this is one of the most misunderstood cases in recent history. Ms Liebeck received a lot o criticism from the general public. The assumption was she had manipulated the legal system to force a corporation to pay her a lot of money. However, I felt that this case wasn't really about Ms Liebeck. It was more about McDonalds Disregard for injuries inflicted by its company policies.
ReplyDeleteMs. Liebeck was not the first person to be injured by McDonald's coffee. Before her injury and complaint. McDonald's had received numerous complaints and even settled them outside of court. However, instead of reviewing its policies and making adjustments to avoid injuries. McDonalds settled this case and hoped that they would go away without addressing the root cause.
Even after settling hundreds of this case, McDonalds still did want to compensate Ms. Liebeck. Also, it was abundantly clear that McDonald's coffee was too hot and had caused injury. Considering that MacDonald's has an annual; revenue of 21Billion dollars, it could be assumed that the coffee revenue was in the billions of dollars. Paying Ms. Liebeck would have been a drop in the bucket. However, McDonalds probably thought taking this case to trial and making it a public spectacle would discourage any future lawsuits. However, this was a big miscalculation on their part.
Anyway, to answer the question, a corporation shouldn't get a pass if their product is dangerous when and if used properly. Especially if this corporation is aware that this potential to be harmful has been realized over and over and doesn't do anything about it.
However, if we consider the Gun industry, the same thing happens over and over. The product made by this industry is potentially dangerous, just as the hot coffee. It has the potential to injure when appropriately used or accidentally just like the coffee. And just like MacDonald's argued, the consumer is aware of the potential to harm when used. However, there have been numerous cases where firearms have injured people, but all Judgement are never in favor of the plaintiff.
Could the same argument used to win Ms.Liebeck case used to in litigation against the gun industry?
Lenny, I agree. I'm trying hard to not be biased, but when you see a corporation that intentionally swept so many complaints under the rug about how harmful or unnecessarily harmful the product was, it makes you think. This was really hard b/c one of the McDonald's defenses had to do with the standard temperature of the hot beverages in most fast food places and they were all around 180 - 190. But just as we've seen in the past, regulations always change.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting case. I feel that her claim for medical expenses was valid, however, the $2.7M for punitive damages was not. The question you posed, "Even if a product was not handled properly, does it give corporations a pass if their product is dangerous and could potentially injure someone when and if used properly? " This is difficult to answer because if you order a "hot" coffee, you should take extra caution to protect yourself when handling such products. I've personally had McDonald's coffee before and it scalded my tongue. I believe that if in excess, a product is more dangerous that exceeds today's standard of common sense, then warning labels should be put on products and corporations should absolutely be held liable for damages caused to their consumers if used improperly. If it is a defective product, then again I am sure a class action suit would be initiated. But at the root of your question, let us take guns for an example. I do no believe gun manufacturers should be held liable for the misuse of firearms because someone who obtained the product legally or illegally misused it and got hurt or injured someone else. McDonald's certainly approached the case in the wrong manner. Addressing that a consumer got injured because of their hot coffee and making the necessary changes to alert consumers of the hazard would have done a lot more for the company in terms of PR than denying any responsibility to the situation. However, to a degree the line must be drawn simply at user error, Great post!
ReplyDelete