Speaker A
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, an elderly woman was severely burned when she spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee in her lap.
The video debunks myths about Stella Liebeck's McDonald's coffee burn case, revealing the true facts behind the lawsuit and media portrayal.
Key Takeaways
- The severity of Liebeck's burns and McDonald's coffee temperature were central to the case.
- Media coverage distorted the facts, fueling misconceptions about frivolous lawsuits.
- The case influenced legal and political discussions on tort reform in America.
- McDonald's was aware of the risks but chose not to lower coffee temperature until after the lawsuit.
- Understanding legal cases requires looking beyond headlines to the detailed facts and outcomes.
What the video covers
- Stella Liebeck, an 81-year-old woman, suffered severe third-degree burns from McDonald's coffee served at 180-190°F.
- She spilled 8 ounces of coffee in her lap while sitting in a parked car, causing burns over 16% of her body.
- Liebeck sought reimbursement for $10,000 in medical bills; McDonald's initially offered only $800.
- The lawsuit highlighted McDonald's knowledge of prior burn claims and refusal to lower coffee temperature.
- The jury awarded $2.9 million in damages, later reduced by the judge and settled for under $500,000.
- Media coverage was sensationalized, often omitting critical facts and portraying Liebeck as frivolous.
- The case became a symbol in debates over tort reform and frivolous lawsuits in the U.S.
- McDonald's has since lowered the serving temperature of its coffee by 10 degrees.
- The video emphasizes the importance of understanding the full context rather than relying on media soundbites.
- Liebeck's family continues to face public misunderstanding despite documentaries and detailed reports.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker B
An 81-year-old woman has been awarded $2.9 million after she sued McDonald's claiming their coffee was too hot.
Speaker C
Stella Liebeck spilled just 8 ounces of coffee, but she attracted a flood of attention.
Speaker C
The jury's award set off a media frenzy and became a rallying cry for those who believed our legal system had run amok.
Speaker D
I think it's absurd.
Speaker C
But as her story cycled through newspaper headlines, talk show storylines, and late night punchlines, one thing was lost: the facts.
Speaker E
This story is the most widely misunderstood story in America.
Speaker E
The public perception of it is, Stella Liebeck won a lottery.
Speaker E
She bought the coffee, she spilled it on herself, and now look, she's a millionaire.
Speaker E
When, of course, the facts are much more complicated than that.
Speaker C
Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old widow, sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car when she was burned on February 27th, 1992.
Speaker C
She'd recently quit her job as a department store clerk and moved to Albuquerque to be near her daughter.
Speaker F
The day that the burns happened, my mother and my nephew went through the drive-through at McDonald's.
Speaker F
And got breakfast and coffee.
Speaker F
And they pulled into the parking lot, and in the Ford Probe, there's slanted surfaces everywhere.
Speaker F
There's no place to put the coffee.
Speaker F
She put it between her knees and lifted the lid off, and in the process of doing that, spilled the coffee.
Speaker F
And all of the hot liquid went into the sweatsuit that she was wearing and pooled in the seat.
Speaker G
All I remember is trying to get out of the car.
Speaker G
I screamed, not realizing I was burned that bad.
Speaker G
I knew I was in terrible pain.
Speaker C
The severity of the burns caused Stella Liebeck to go into shock.
Speaker C
And her grandson immediately took her to the emergency room.
Speaker F
She was burned over 16% of her body, 6% of the burns were third degree.
Speaker F
She was in the hospital for a week.
Speaker C
Medical bills were $10,000.
Speaker C
So Stella reached out to McDonald's and asked to be reimbursed.
Speaker F
We couldn't believe that this could happen over spilling the coffee.
Speaker F
So we wrote a letter to McDonald's asking them to check the temperature of the coffee.
Speaker F
And to give recompense for the medical bills, and the response from McDonald's was an offer of $800.
Speaker C
Stella Liebeck had never sued anyone before Albuquerque attorney Ken Wagner took her case.
Speaker C
Before they went to trial, they tried twice to settle out of court.
Speaker C
But McDonald's refused.
Speaker H
We bought a product, it was used as intended, it was unreasonably hot and therefore unreasonably dangerous.
Speaker H
And those were the essential facts.
Speaker G
I was not in it for the money, I was in it because I wanted to bring the temperature down.
Speaker G
So that people, other people would not go through the same thing I did.
Speaker C
McDonald's policy was to serve coffee between 180 and 190 degrees.
Speaker C
That's about 30 degrees warmer than most home coffee brewing machines.
Speaker C
A burn expert testified that liquid at 180 degrees could cause third-degree burns within 15 seconds.
Speaker C
Lawyers produced documents that showed that between 1983 and 1992, nearly 700 people claimed that they had been burned by hot coffee at McDonald's.
Speaker H
McDonald's was on big time notice that they had a product that was dangerous and it was burning people.
Speaker H
We argued that to the jury that they were callous and indifferent and in simply not turning down the temperature.
Speaker C
An expert for McDonald's testified that burns are exceedingly rare, one for every 24 million cups of coffee served.
Speaker F
They just said it's statistically insignificant.
Speaker F
And we're not going to change what we do.
Speaker I
People interact with hot beverages all the time in a fast food restaurant and that doesn't necessarily mean that the restaurant is doing something wrong.
Speaker I
McDonald's had a really, really strong reason for why they brewed their coffee at the temperature they did.
Speaker I
It was an industrial standard based on the maximum extraction of the flavor and the maximum holding temperature.
Speaker C
But the jury saw how liquid at that temperature can scald when they were shown graphic photos of Mrs. Liebeck's burned groin.
Speaker H
The photos depicted where they had to graft the skin from the side of her legs to close the third-degree burn.
Speaker H
And I think if people would have seen the severity of the burns, they would have realized it was not a laughing matter.
Speaker C
After seven days of testimony and four hours of deliberation, jurors came up with a comprehensive answer to a complicated case.
Speaker C
They unanimously agreed to award Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages, but because she caused the spill, they reduced that to $160,000.
Speaker C
Jurors set punitive damages to send the message to McDonald's to turn down the temperature of the coffee.
Speaker H
I remember I could see Judge Scott going like this with his pencil and I, I thought, oh, I hope he's counting digits on the verdict form.
Speaker H
And he was.
Speaker C
They based the amount on the revenue from two days of coffee sales, $2.7 million.
Speaker C
The size of the award got the media's attention, but it overshadowed the rest of the story.
Speaker C
Details of the case and the facts related to how the jury made its decision went mostly unreported.
Speaker H
Several days after the verdict, I had news crews from France, Japan, Germany in my driveway wanting to interview me.
Speaker H
I mean, I was stunned.
Speaker C
After the verdict came in, Wednesday, August 17th, the Albuquerque Journal ran the first story.
Speaker C
The Associated Press and Reuters wire services then filed reports, and the story was picked up in dozens of newspapers worldwide.
Speaker C
It became an international news event.
Speaker C
But as the story's reach got bigger, the word count got smaller.
Speaker C
In some papers, it was not more than a blurb.
Speaker E
697 words in the, in the Albuquerque Journal became 349 words in the AP and became as few as 48 words in various renderings by major metropolitan newspapers.
Speaker E
48 words can't explain a lot, and then woman coffee millions sounds like a rip-off.
Speaker E
Not like a logical consequence of a thoughtful trial.
Speaker B
Now she claims she broke her nose on the sneeze guard at the Sizzler bending over looking at the chickpeas.
Speaker J
Oh, my coffee was too hot.
Speaker J
It's coffee.
Speaker K
The lawsuit also got a lot of play on talk radio.
Speaker L
It was a very high issue for a long time.
Speaker L
It's probably one of the most sensational, high-profile, uh, tort cases of the last 20 years.
Speaker L
So when tort reform comes up, most people say, oh, you're sure the McDonald's case.
Speaker C
Republican lawmakers crafting the Contract with America seized the moment.
Speaker C
They tapped into public outrage over frivolous lawsuits to promote the Common Sense Legal Reform Act.
Speaker C
Liebeck's case became Exhibit A.
Speaker M
A lady goes through a fast food restaurant, puts coffee in her lap, burns her, her legs and sues and gets a big settlement.
Speaker M
That in and of itself is enough to tell you why we need to have tort reform.
Speaker N
She spilled hot coffee on her lap while sitting in her car and claimed it was too hot.
Speaker N
Every day we hear about another outrageous lawsuit.
Speaker C
Stella's portrayal as a scheming wannabe millionaire was based on the jury's award.
Speaker C
But that amount was only a suggestion.
Speaker C
In reality, the judge significantly reduced the punitive damages.
Speaker O
The judge reduced the award to about $650,000.
Speaker C
According to a source familiar with the case, it was settled for less than $500,000.
Speaker C
Stella was not allowed to talk to the press.
Speaker C
But over the last two decades, her lawsuit has become part of the cultural discourse.
Speaker C
Stella's daughter says that although over the years some stories have given greater context and a new perspective, such as the documentary Hot Coffee.
Speaker C
Her family is still haunted by a perception that doesn't seem to go away.
Speaker F
The emotion that she went through, she just felt like people were coming at her.
Speaker C
McDonald's representatives didn't return emails or calls.
Speaker C
But according to current franchisee handbooks, coffee must now be held and served 10 degrees lower.
Speaker C
What people believe are the facts of this case.
Speaker C
And how deeply held those convictions are has become useful to attorneys.
Speaker C
The case that became an example of juries being out of control is now used to screen potential jurors.
Speaker E
It's a wonderful litmus test if you're putting someone on a jury, you really have to know how they feel about this case.
Speaker E
To know whether they're open to the facts that you're going to present.
Speaker E
McDonald's has been in the public mind cast as the victim that Stella Liebeck needed to defend her reputation.
Speaker E
Is the saddest piece of this whole story to me.
Topics:Stella LiebeckMcDonald's coffee lawsuithot coffee burnstort reformmedia distortionproduct liabilitylegal caseMcDonald's coffee temperaturejury verdictconsumer safety
