Question: What was the litigation about?

The documentary “Hot Coffee” examines a case where a customer was burnt by her
coffee that she purchased from a popular franchise in February 1992. Stella Liebeck, was 79
years of age at the time, when she ordered a cup of coffee from McDonald’s. The coffee was
served in a Styrofoam cup at the franchise’s drive through window. Liebeck received the
coffee then her grandson drove further then stopped momentarily in order for his
grandmother to add sugar and cream to her coffee. The coffee was then placed between
Liebeck’s knee in order for her to have the cup balanced to remove the plastic lid. As she
removed the lid, the coffee spilled into her lap which then soaked into her sweatpants and
burnt her.
A vascular surgeon revealed that Stella Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (third
degree burn) over 6 percent of her body, which includes her inner thighs, groin areas, genital,
rear area from the coffee. As a result, Liebeck was hospitalized for eight (8) days, during that
period, she underwent skin grafting; a surgical procedure that involves removing skin from
one area of the body and transplanting it to a different area of the body and debridement
(removal of dead or damaged tissues) treatments. The areas which had full thickness injury
had to have skin grafts for coverage. Ms. Liebeck brought a suit against the franchise,
McDonalds and was apparently willing to settle for $20,000USD, however, McDonalds made
a strategic decision to fight the claim.
During the discovery phase of the case, several interesting facts came out that,
through the years, were not discussed by the main stream media. For one, McDonalds had
faced over 700 claims by people who had suffered burns from the coffee within the time
frame of 1982-1992. Some of these cases were similar to Ms. Liebeck’s, such as full-
thickness burns. These previous claims illustrated that McDonalds was aware or should have
known about the danger that’s associated with high temperature of the coffee.
During this discovery, McDondald’s said based on consultants’ advice, it held its
coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain its taste. McDonalds also
claimed that customers usually intend to consume their coffee after they got home or work
and by then, their coffee would have cooled down. However, the franchise own internal
research showed that most of the customers drank the coffee while still in their vehicle.
Mcdonalds admitted that they had not studied the dangers associated with these high
temperatures. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus
five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140
degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into
styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The
quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had
no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiff’s had an expert on thermodynamics related to skin burns. He testified that
liquids at 180 degrees would cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven
seconds. As the temperature of the liquid fell to 155 degrees the likelihood of a burn injury
would fall exponentially. If the coffee served to Ms. Liebeck was 155 degrees it would have
cooled enough to avoid a significant injury when she spilled it. he company admitted its
customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a
statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of
the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was
reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury
also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of
McDonalds' coffee sales.

What is Tort Reform?

Tort reform refers to the proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the
ability of victims to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Generally,
they involve making it harder for injured people to file a lawsuit, limiting the amount of
money or damages that injured people receive as compensation for their injuries in a lawsuit.
OR
Tort reform means laws designed to discourage claimants from filing certain types of
lawsuits, such as suits alleging medical malpractice

Diona.fullerbarrett@gmail.com