Jilipark22.Makakuha ng libreng 700pho sa bawat deposito

Author: Rhonda Payne

What many consider to be one of the original Nuclear Verdicts? is the ‘McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case,’ which marked its 30th anniversary this year.? Although the case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. et al. was ultimately settled before appeal and there is no published court opinion, much has been written about the case given the sensational verdict initially delivered by the jury.

?

Facts

On February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck took a trip to McDonald’s with her grandson.[1] She was a passenger in her grandson’s Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders.[2] After Liebeck was served a cup of coffee at the drive-through window, her grandson parked the vehicle so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee.[3]? Liebeck put the cup of coffee between her knees as she removed the lid.[4]? The coffee spilled in her lap causing severe burns to over 16 percent of Liebeck’s body, requiring a week-long hospital stay and numerous skin grafts.[5] ?As Liebeck’s medical bills climbed to over $10,000, she reached out to McDonald’s requesting it check the temperature of its coffee and offering to settle for $20,000.[6] In response, McDonald’s offered $800.[7] Liebeck hired counsel and sued McDonald’s for $125,000 for medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.[8]

?

Discovery

The McDonald’s franchise where Liebeck purchased her coffee was required, per its franchise documents, to sell its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees and to brew its coffee at even higher temperatures.[9] For reference, home coffee makers brew at approximately 135 to 150 degrees.[10] Counsel for Liebeck equated the temperature McDonald’s coffee was brewed to the temperature of a car’s radiator after an afternoon commute from the office.[11]? In three seconds, the coffee Liebeck was served that day was hot enough to cause third-degree burns through clothing.[12] Other companies served coffee at approximately 160 degrees, which takes twenty seconds to cause third-degree burns, and is usually enough time to wipe away spilled coffee[13]

The skin around Liebeck’s inner thighs and genitals was burned to the layers of muscle and fatty tissue.[14]?She was hospitalized for eight days and her recovery, including numerous skin grafts, lasted two years.[15]

McDonald’s reasoning for the temperature requirements was that a high temperature was necessary to fully extract the flavor during the brewing process, making the coffee taste better.[16] During the ten years prior, McDonald’s had 700 complaints related to burns from hot beverages, which McDonald’s argued was an insignificant number given the billions of customers that frequent McDonald’s.[17]

?

The Verdict

After a week-long trial, the jury found McDonald’s 80% at fault and Liebeck 20% at fault, awarding Liebeck $200,000 in damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs, which were reduced to $160,000 to account for her 20 percent apportioned responsibility.[18] The jury awarded punitive damages of $2.7 million, which equaled about two days of McDonald’s coffee sales.[19] The trial judge reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled for a confidential amount, which has been reported to be less than $500,000.[20]

?

Nuclear Verdict? or Nuclear Media Campaign?

When we think of Nuclear Verdicts?, we think of exceptionally high jury awards that surpass what is reasonable or rational, traditionally with noneconomic damages serving as the biggest component of the verdict. Following the verdict in this case, which garnered national headlines, the general public believed the verdict was patently unreasonable. Indeed, the case galvanized a movement toward tort reform. However, as documentaries and discussion revealed the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, public opinion has since shifted.[21] This shift in opinion speaks to the number one driver of Nuclear Verdicts?, even today: anger. Left unchecked and unvalidated, anger reigns supreme in both the courtroom and the court of public opinion.

As Nuclear Verdicts? are now delivered with shocking regularity, trending toward more and higher across the country, one wonders what the value of the famous ‘McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case” would be today. As similar cases against coffee chains progress to trial, we may very well have an answer.

?

Takeaways

Given the facts presented to the jury in this case, it does seem McDonald’s could have done more to be reasonable and defuse juror anger. What kind of verdict would the jury have returned if McDonald’s accepted responsibility for something at the start? After seeing graphic photos of Liebeck’s severe burns,[22] common sense told the jury that the coffee Liebeck was served that day was too hot, and the severe injuries coupled with an inadequate response from McDonald’s primed the jury for anger and ultimately vengeance. Had McDonald’s acknowledged the severity of the injuries, accepted responsibility for its role (which would have allowed McDonald’s to shift responsibility), and effectively argued pain and suffering and given a number, it is likely the jury’s anger would have been validated and defused. The jury would have had a roadmap for calculating reasonable damages. Instead, McDonald’s angered the jurors further by suggesting that over 700 people burned in a ten-year period is insignificant.? Regardless of your thoughts on the punitive damages award, the ‘McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case’ seems to be a classic example of failing to personalize the corporate defendant, failing to be reasonable, and failing to defuse juror anger.

Sources

[1] Andy Simmons, Remember the Hot Coffee Lawsuit? It Changed the Way McDonald’s Heats Coffee Forever, Readers Digest (July 15, 2021), https://www.rd.com/article/hot-coffee-lawsuit/

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Simmons, supra; Allison Torres Burtka, Liebeck v. McDonald’s, American Museum of Tort Law, https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ (last visited August 24, 2024).

[7] Simmons, supra.

[8] Simmons, supra.

[9] Simmons, supra; Burtka, supra.

[10] Burtka, supra.

[11] Simmons, supra.

[12] Burtka, supra.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Simmons, supra.

[17] Id.

[18] Burtka, supra.