The general facts of the case
Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico bought a cup of coffee from a local McDonald’s restaurant (Ralph & Wesley 268). Liebeck went to her car at the restaurant’s parking to prepare the coffee and drink. In the process, she had placed the cup of coffee between her knees while attempting to open the lid to allow her to pour sugar plus cream into it (Bloom, Haltom & McCann 13). The coffee spilled on her lap causing serious burns on her buttocks, thighs as well as groin (Ralph & Wesley 268). This happened on 27th February 1992. The coffee had been heated to 190 F which was far much above the point at which other restaurants boiled their coffee (160 F) (Cain 9). When she was rushed to the hospital, it was found out that she had suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her skin as well as another 16% to a lesser degree (Ralph & Wesley 268). She suffered serious burns since she had won cotton sweatpants which had absorbed the hot coffee (Cain 4). As a result, she had to undergo skin grafting which cost her close to $20,000 in medical bills. In addition, she lost 9 kg of her body weight in eight days of hospitalization (Gerlin 4). This was followed by 2 years of medical treatment. However, when she contacted McDonald’s to help her pay part of the bill of about $20,000, McDonald’s declined (Gerlin 1). Instead, McDonald’s blamed her for her injuries arguing that she could not have placed the cup of coffee between her knees and that she could have taken off her pants on time. McDonald’s claimed that her age contributed greatly to her injuries since older people normally have thin skin.
Filing of the case
When McDonald’s refused to pay the $20,000 in medical bill and loss of income only offering to pay $800, Liebeck retained Reed Morgan, a Texas attorney (Cain 5-6). Morgan filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s at New Mexico District Court accusing the company of gross negligence in selling unreasonably dangerous as well as defectively manufactured coffee to Liebeck. Morgan claimed that the coffee served to Liebeck was excessively hot as compared to coffee served in other restaurants and that that was the major cause of Liebeck’s injuries (Gerlin 4). However, McDonald’s maintained that Liebeck was to be blamed for the injuries claiming that she could have mitigated the impacts by not placing the cup of coffee between her knees and taking off her pants as fast as possible.
Trial
The trial began on the 8th of August 1994 and ended on the 17th of the same month. Liebeck’s attorneys found out that it was McDonald’s policy to serve coffee to customers at high temperatures of 180-190 0F (Cain 9). They argued that at that temperature, it was possible to suffer third-degree burns within 12-15 seconds if the coffee served at that temperature spills on the skin, and this would call for skin grafting to heal (Cain 9). McDonald on their part had argued that they served coffee at that temperature to meet the needs of customers who wanted to drive for some distance with the coffee (Cain 10).
Jury’s verdict
The verdict was made on the 18th of the same month. The jury established that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for Liebeck’s injury while the remaining percentage was the fault of the plaintiff (Cain 14). The jury reached that though the coffee cup had a warning on it; it was not enough to prevent injuries. The jury found McDonald’s liable for the injuries as it believed that the company had acted willfully and recklessly. As a result, Liebeck was awarded compensatory damages of $160,000 after subtracting her 20% role in the incident (Cain 14). She was also awarded punitive damages of $2.7 million (Cain 14). This represented McDonald’s two days sale of coffee.
The appeal of the case
This decision was later appealed by McDonald’s. The judge at the appeal court lowered the punitive damages to $480,000, which was thrice the compensatory damages, totaling to $640,000 (Cain 14).
The standards applied in determining liability
The jury applied the principles of comparative negligence to determine the liability of the case. In comparative negligence, the jury or the judge sums up the total damages and then reduces the amount based on the extent to which the complainant contributed to the cause of the damages/injury. This is applied specifically in a negligence-based claim where the jury decides on the extent to which the complainant’s negligence versus the negligence of all other actors who contributed to the cause of the damage/injury, put together. In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, the jury determined that the total compensatory damages were $200,000; however, since the plaintiff, Liebeck, was also 20% responsible for the cause of her injury, she was only supposed to be paid 80% of the compensatory damages which was $160,000 (Gerlin 12).
The basis of the judgment
The case was based on manufacture defect since the jury established that McDonald’s had provided a warning on the cup of coffee. Liebeck’s attorneys had accused McDonald’s of selling unreasonably dangerous as well as defectively manufactured coffee. During the trial, Liebeck’s attorneys had proved to the jury that McDonald’s had heated coffee to a temperature that was above the standards of other restaurants making its customers vulnerable to third-degree burns within 12-15 seconds.
Difference between failure to warn, design defect, and manufacturing defect
In cases based on failure to warn, claims for injuries or damages are based on whether the product which caused the injury/damage had defects. The jury/judge must also determine whether the complainant’s injury was caused by the use of the product as well as whether the defendant is the manufacturer of the product. The manufacturer had known or ought to have known the risk but did not provide adequate information or warning.
In design defect, the jury/judge has to determine whether the product failed to perform as safely as per the expectation of the consumer when used as was intended. The complainant’s injury must have resulted from the use of the product that had the defect in the design by the time it left the manufacturer’s or supplier’s store.
In manufacture design, the product that caused the complainant’s injury or damage must have had a defect in its manufacture by the time it left the manufacturer’s possession. While the manufacturer could have avoided the risk, decided not to.
How the lawsuit affected the industry
This lawsuit made most coffee vendors improve their packaging in an attempt to avoid such accidents. Although McDonald’s has not lowered the temperature of its coffee, it provides sternly-worded warnings on coffee cups to avoid such liabilities (Cain 18).
Ethical view
In my opinion, McDonald’s had acted unethically by refusing to respond to Liebeck’s plea to help her pay the medical bills, and instead adopting a blame tactic to push her away. Again, McDonald’s had acted without consideration of the safety of its customers. McDonald’s was aware of the 700 cases of burns that had resulted from its highly heated products which had cost the company about $500,000 in lawsuits but still refused to change its policy. Besides, McDonald’s knew that its coffee’s high temperature could cause serious, third-degree burns but did not provide adequate warning to its customers.
Works Cited
Bloom, Anne, Haltom, William and McCann, Michael. “Law & Society Symposium: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Ico.” 56 University of Miami Law Review 113 (2001): 1-19.
Cain, Kevin. And Now, The Rest of the Story…: About the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit. The Houston Lawyer, 2007. Web.
Gerlin, Andrea. “A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million.” Wall Street Journal (1994).
Ralph, Nader and Wesley, Smith. No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America. New York: Radom House Publication Group, 1996. Print.