Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media | Retro Report | The New York Times

Summary

In 1992, Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's after suffering severe burns from spilled coffee. The case awarded her $2.9 million, sparking media frenzy and public outcry. The true story, however, was more complex; McDonald's served coffee at 180-190°F, causing third-degree burns. Despite the jury's punitive damages to prompt temperature reduction, the case was misreported, portraying Liebeck as greedy. The actual settlement was significantly less, and McDonald's later lowered their coffee temperature.

Takeaways

• 👵 Stella Liebeck, an 81-year-old woman, sued McDonald's after suffering severe burns from their coffee, which was served at an unusually high temperature.
• 💺 The incident occurred while she was a passenger in a parked car, not driving, which is a common misconception about the case.
• 🔥 McDonald's coffee was served at 180-190°F, which is significantly hotter than the temperature of most home-brewed coffee.
• 🚑 Stella suffered third-degree burns over 16% of her body and had to undergo extensive medical treatment, incurring $10,000 in medical bills.
• 📝 Initially, Stella only asked McDonald's to cover her medical expenses, but they offered just $800, leading to her decision to sue.
• 📉 McDonald's had prior knowledge of the issue, with nearly 700 burn claims between 1983 and 1992, yet they did not change their coffee-serving practices.
• 🏆 The jury awarded Stella $2.9 million, which included $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, later reduced by the judge.
• 📉 The media's portrayal of the case was often sensationalized and misleading, focusing on the large sum awarded rather than the facts of the case.
• 🗣️ The case became a rallying point for those advocating for tort reform, with Stella being unfairly depicted as a greedy individual exploiting the legal system.
• 📉 The actual settlement amount was significantly less than the initial jury award, and was settled for less than $500,000.
• 🔍 The case is now used as a litmus test for potential jurors to gauge their openness to the facts presented in a case, rather than preconceived notions.

Q & A

What incident led to Stella Liebeck suing McDonald's?

Stella Liebeck, an 81-year-old woman, sued McDonald's after she spilled a cup of their coffee in her lap, resulting in severe burns.

How much was Stella Liebeck awarded after suing McDonald's?

Stella Liebeck was initially awarded $2.9 million, but the amount was later reduced to about $650,000 by the judge.

What was the public's perception of Stella Liebeck's lawsuit?

The public generally perceived Stella Liebeck's lawsuit as frivolous and believed she won a lottery by spilling coffee on herself and becoming a millionaire.

Why was Stella Liebeck's case taken to court?

Stella Liebeck's case went to court because McDonald's refused to settle out of court and she wanted to ensure that McDonald's would lower the temperature of their coffee to prevent similar incidents.

What was the temperature of the coffee that caused Stella Liebeck's burns?

The coffee that caused Stella Liebeck's burns was served at a temperature between 180 to 190° Fahrenheit, which is about 30° warmer than most home coffee brewing machines.

How many similar incidents were there before Stella Liebeck's case?

Between 1983 and 1992, nearly 700 people claimed they had been burned by hot coffee at McDonald's.

What was the jury's rationale for awarding punitive damages in Stella Liebeck's case?

The jury awarded punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's to turn down the temperature of their coffee, as they believed the company was callous and indifferent to the danger their product posed.

What was the final outcome of the case after the verdict?

The case was settled for less than $500,000, and McDonald's reportedly lowered the serving temperature of their coffee in their franchisee handbooks.

How did the media's portrayal of the case affect Stella Liebeck and her family?

The media's portrayal of the case as a frivolous lawsuit turned Stella Liebeck into a villain and caused her and her family emotional distress, as they felt misunderstood and bullied.

What impact did Stella Liebeck's case have on the legal system and public discourse?

Stella Liebeck's case became a rallying cry for those advocating for tort reform and is often cited as an example of a jury being out of control. It also became a litmus test for screening potential jurors.

How did the temperature of the coffee and the design of the car contribute to Stella Liebeck's injuries?

The high temperature of the coffee and the slanted surfaces in the car, which provided no place to safely put the coffee, contributed to the severity of Stella Liebeck's burns when the coffee spilled into her sweatsuit.

Outlines

00:00

🔥 The Infamous McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

This paragraph details the case of Stella Liebeck, an 81-year-old woman who sued McDonald's after suffering severe burns from their hot coffee. The case gained widespread media attention, leading to a public perception that was often misunderstood. The incident occurred in 1992 when Liebeck, a widow, was in a parked car and unable to find a stable place to hold her coffee, resulting in a spill that caused third-degree burns over 16% of her body. The medical expenses amounted to $10,000, and after McDonald's offered only $800, Liebeck sought legal action. The case revealed that McDonald's served their coffee at 180-190°F, which was significantly hotter than the average home-brewed coffee and could cause severe burns in a very short time. Evidence showed that nearly 700 people had been burned by McDonald's coffee between 1983 and 1992, indicating a known issue that the company had not addressed. The case was not about the money but about the need for safety improvements in the product.

05:01

📰 Media Frenzy and Misunderstood Facts

The second paragraph discusses the media's role in shaping public opinion about the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The jury awarded Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 due to her role in the spill. They also set punitive damages at $2.7 million, based on two days of coffee sales revenue, intending to send a message to McDonald's to lower the coffee temperature. However, media reports often failed to convey the full context and facts of the case, leading to a simplified and often inaccurate narrative. This resulted in Stella being portrayed as a villain who frivolously sued McDonald's, which was far from the truth. The actual settlement amount was significantly less than the jury's suggestion and was settled for an undisclosed amount, believed to be less than $500,000. The case has since been used as a cultural reference and a cautionary tale in the discussion of tort reform and frivolous lawsuits.

10:04

🚫 Lingering Misconceptions and the Impact on Jurors

The final paragraph highlights the lasting impact of the case on public perception and its use in the legal field. Despite some attempts to provide a more accurate portrayal of the events, such as in the documentary 'Hot Coffee', the misconceptions about Stella Liebeck's case persist. The case has become a litmus test for potential jurors, as it reveals their predispositions and openness to facts. The narrative has cast McDonald's as the victim, which is a point of sadness for Liebeck's family. Interestingly, McDonald's has since adjusted their coffee serving temperature in their franchisee handbooks. Stella Liebeck passed away in 2004, but the emotional turmoil she experienced due to the public's misunderstanding of her case continues to resonate.

Keywords

💡Stella Liebeck

Stella Liebeck is the central figure in the video, an elderly woman who sued McDonald's after being severely burned by their coffee. Her name is crucial as it represents the individual whose experience sparked a significant legal case and public debate. The video discusses her age, status as a widow, and the circumstances of her injury, illustrating the personal impact of the incident.

💡McDonald's

McDonald's is the defendant in the legal case highlighted in the video. As a major fast-food corporation, it is responsible for the product that caused Stella Liebeck's injuries. The video explores the company's policy on serving hot coffee, its refusal to settle out of court, and its role in the public's perception of the case.

💡Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages refer to the monetary compensation awarded to a plaintiff to cover actual losses or damages incurred due to the defendant's actions. In the video, the jury initially awards Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages for her injuries, which is later reduced due to her role in the spill.

💡Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are awarded in addition to compensatory damages with the intention of punishing the defendant for particularly harmful or malicious behavior. The video explains that the jury set punitive damages to send a message to McDonald's about the temperature of their coffee, which was later reduced by the judge.

💡Burn Injuries

Burn injuries are a central theme of the video, detailing the severity of Stella Liebeck's burns and the medical consequences. The script describes the percentage of her body burned and the depth of the burns, emphasizing the physical trauma she experienced.

💡Media Frenzy

The term 'media frenzy' captures the intense and sensationalist coverage of the case by various news outlets. The video discusses how the initial story was simplified and misrepresented in the media, leading to a distorted public perception of the facts.

💡Tort Reform

Tort reform refers to changes in the legal system aimed at reducing the number of lawsuits or capping the amount of damages awarded. The video mentions how Stella Liebeck's case was used as a rallying point for those advocating for tort reform, illustrating the case's influence on legal policy discussions.

💡Jury Deliberation

Jury deliberation is the process by which a jury discusses and reaches a verdict in a trial. The video describes the jury's decision-making process, including the time taken for deliberation and the factors they considered in awarding damages.

💡Public Perception

Public perception is the collective understanding or opinion of the general public regarding a particular issue or event. The video highlights the discrepancy between the actual facts of the case and the public's misunderstanding of Stella Liebeck's motivations and the circumstances of her injury.

💡Legal Precedent

Legal precedent refers to a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding or persuasive in a court's decision-making process. The video suggests that the outcome of Stella Liebeck's case set a precedent for how similar cases might be viewed by the public and the legal system.

💡Coffee Temperature

The temperature of McDonald's coffee is a key issue in the video, as it is the primary cause of the injury and the focus of the lawsuit. The script discusses the company's policy of serving coffee at a high temperature and the subsequent safety concerns, which are central to the case's outcome.

Highlights

An 81-year-old woman, Stella Lebeck, was awarded $2.9 million after suing McDonald's for serving coffee that was too hot, causing severe burns.

Stella Lebeck's case became a media frenzy and was widely misunderstood, often portrayed as a frivolous lawsuit.

The public perception was that Lebeck won a lottery by spilling coffee on herself and becoming a millionaire.

Stella Lebeck was a 79-year-old widow who was burned in a parked car, not while driving.

She suffered burns over 16% of her body, with 6% being third-degree burns, leading to a week in the hospital and $10,000 in medical bills.

McDonald's initially offered $800 as compensation, which was rejected by Lebeck's family.

McDonald's policy was to serve coffee at 180-190°F, which is significantly hotter than most home brewing machines.

Between 1983 and 1992, nearly 700 people claimed to have been burned by McDonald's hot coffee.

McDonald's argued that burns were statistically insignificant, occurring once for every 24 million cups of coffee served.

The jury awarded Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 due to her role in the spill.

Punitive damages were set at $2.7 million, based on two days of coffee sales revenue, to send a message to McDonald's.

The media's focus on the large award amount overshadowed the details of the case and the jury's rationale.

Stella Lebeck's case was used to promote the Common Sense Legal Reform Act, becoming a symbol for frivolous lawsuits.

The judge reduced the punitive damages to about $650,000, and the case was settled for less than $500,000.

Lebeck's portrayal as a villain in the media felt like bullying to her family.

The case is now used as a litmus test for potential jurors to gauge their openness to the facts presented in a trial.

McDonald's franchisee handbooks now require coffee to be held and served at a lower temperature.

Transcripts

[Music]

in Albuquerque New Mexico an elderly

woman was severely burned when she

spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee in

her lap an 81-year-old woman has been

awarded $2.9 million after she sued

McDonald's claiming their coffee was too

hot Stella lebeck spilled just 8 ounces

of coffee but she attracted a flood of

attention the jury's award set off a

media frenzy and became a rallying cry

for those who believed are leg system at

run a monck I think it's absurd but as

her story cycled through newspaper

headlines talk show story lines and late

night punch lines one thing was lost the

facts this story is the most widely

misunderstood story in

[Music]

America the the public perception of it

is Stella leeck won a lottery she bought

the coffee she spilled it on herself and

now look she's a

millionaire when of course the facts are

much more complicated than that Stella

lebeck was a 79-year-old Widow sitting

in the passenger seat of a parked car

when she was burned on February 27th

1992 she had recently quit her job as a

department store clerk and moved to

Albuquerque to be near her daughter the

day that the burns happened my mother

and my nephew went through the

drive-thru at McDonald's and got

breakfast and coffee and they pulled

into the parking lot and in the Ford

Probe there's slanted surfaces

everywhere there's no place to put the

coffee she put it between her knees and

lifted the lid off and in the process of

doing that spilled the coffee and all of

the hot liquid went into the sweatsuit

that she was wearing and pulled in the

the seat all I remember was trying to

get out of the car I screamed not

realizing I was burned that bad I knew I

was in terrible

pain the severity of the burns caused

Stella Lebec to go into shock and her

grandson immediately took her to the

emergency room she was burned over 16%

of her body 6% of the burns were third

degree she was in the hospital for a

week medical bills were

$10,000 so Stella reached out to

Donald's and asked to be reimbursed we

couldn't believe that this could happen

over spilling the coffee so we wrote a

letter to McDonald's asking them to

check the temperature of the coffee and

to give recompense for the medical bills

and the response from McDonald's was an

offer of

$800 Stella lebeck had never sued anyone

before Albuquerque attorney Ken Wagner

took her case before they went to trial

they tried twice to settle out of court

but McDonald's refused we bought a

product it was used as intended it was

unreasonably hot and therefore

unreasonably dangerous and those were

the essential facts I was not in it for

the money I was in it because I want

them to bring the temperature down so

that people other people will not go

through the same thing I

did McDonald's policy was to serve

coffee between 180 and

90° that's about 30° warmer than most

home coffee brewing machines a burn

expert testified that liquid at 180°

could cause third degree burns within 15

seconds 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

McDonald's was on Big Time notice that

they had a product that was dangerous

and it was burning people we argued that

to the jury that they were callous and

indifferent in simply not turning down a

temperature an expert for McDonald's

testified that burns are exceedingly

rare one for every 24 million cups of

coffee served they just said it's

statistically

insignificant and we're not going to

change what we

do people interact with hot beverages

all the time in a fast food restaurant

and that doesn't necessarily mean that

restaurant is doing something wrong

attorney Tracy jensx tried the case for

McDonald's and argued that Mrs lebeck

bore personal responsibility because she

spilled the coffee on herself and that

McDonald's coffee wasn't any hotter than

the coffee at other fast food

restaurants she said the reason the

coffee was so hot was because that's

what customers wanted McDonald's had a

really really strong reason for why they

brewed their coffee at the temperature

they did it was an industrial standard

based on the the maximum extraction of

the flavor and the maximum holding

temperature but the jury saw how liquid

at that temperature can scald when they

were shown graphic photos of Mrs leck's

burned

groin the photos depicted where they had

to graph the skin from the side of her

legs to close the third degree burn and

I think if people would have seen the

severity of the burns they would have

realized it was not a laughing

matter after 7 Days of testimony and 4

hours of deliberation jurors came up

with a comprehensive answer to a

complicated case they unanimously agreed

to award Stella $200,000 in compensatory

damages but because she caused the spill

they reduced that to 160,000 jurors set

punitive damages to send the message to

McDonald's to turn down the temperature

of the coffee 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

and he was they based the amount on the

revenue from two days of coffee sales

$2.7 million the size of the award got

the media's attention but it

overshadowed the rest of the story

details of the case and the facts

related to how the jury made its

decision went mostly

unreported several days after the

verdict I had news crews from France

Japan Germany my driveway wanting to

interview me mean I was

stunned after the verdict came in

Wednesday August 17th the Albuquerque

Journal ran the first story The

Associated Press and Reuters wire

Services then filed reports and the

story was picked up in dozens of

newspapers worldwide it became an

international news event but as the

story's reach got bigger the word count

got smaller in some papers who was not

more than a blur 697 words in the in the

Albuquerque Journal became 3 149 words

in the AP and became as few as 48 words

in various renderings by Major

Metropolitan newspapers 48 words can't

explain a lot and then woman coffee

Millions sounds like a ripoff not like a

logical consequence of a thoughtful uh

trial the report aired on more than a

dozen National broadcasts and twice as

many local news shows the condensed

telling of the story created its own

version of the truth instead of pointing

out she spilled the coffee in the

passenger seat of a parked car this was

the new narrative it seems she was

holding a cup between her legs while

driving clamped it between her legs

drove down the street spilled it burned

herself sued McDonald's and collected

Stella has received letters saying stuff

like I was driving down the road I had

no business driving down the road with

coffee between my legs and all that

stuff see they're just plain ignorant my

mother was made the villain in this

story it's like bullying it feels like

bullying I mean it's not like the

McDonald's person leaned over the car

and poured it was an accident very much

like urban legends it is a very

compelling story once everybody decides

what is true about something and the

media has been sort of an echo chamber

for it then how do you deal with the

fact that they might be wrong now she

claims she broke her nose on the sneeze

got at the Sizzler bending over looking

at the chickpeas Oho my coffee was too

hot it's coffee

the lawsuit also got a lot of play on

talk radio it was a very hot issue for a

long time it's probably one of the most

Sensational high-profile uh tort cases

of the last 20 years so when tort reform

comes up most people say oh you sure of

the McDonald's case Republican lawmakers

crafting the contract with America seize

the

moment they tapped into public outrage

over frivolous lawsuits to promote the

common sense legal Reform Act leck's

case became exhibit

a the lady goes through a fast food

restaurant puts coffee in her lap Burns

her her legs and sues and gets a big

settlement that in of it of itself is

enough to tell you why we need to have

Tor reform she spilled hot coffee on her

lap while sitting in her car and claimed

it was too hot every day we hear about

another outrageous

lawsuit Stella's portrayal as a scheming

wannabe millionaire was based on the

jury's award but that amount was only a

sugestion in reality the judge

significantly reduced the punitive

damages the judge reduced the award to

about

$650,000 according to a source familiar

with the case it was settled for less

than

$500,000 Stella was not allowed to talk

to the Press but over the last two

decades her lawsuit has become part of

the cultural

discourse pardon me excuse

us

cof we got a chance do we have a chance

you get me one coffee drinker on that

jewelry you going to walk out of there a

rich

man 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 her

family is still haunted by a perception

that doesn't seem to go

away getting bigger Jesus gettinger A C

of cof million I like Toby Keith but he

did the American

Ride do we have to keep living this over

and over and over again man it's hot how

hot is it it's so hot I poured

McDonald's coffee in my lap to cool

off what people believe are the facts of

this case and How Deeply held those

convictions are has become useful to

attorneys the case that became an

example of jury's being out of control

is now used to screen potential

jurors 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 to know whether they are open

to the facts that you're going to

present McDonald's has been in the

public mind cast as the victim that

Stella liebeck needed to defend her

reputation is the saddest piece of this

whole story to me Stella lebeck died in

2004 when she was

91 the emotion that she went through she

just felt like people were coming at

her McDonald's Representatives didn't

return emails or calls but according to

current franchisee handbooks coffee must

now be held and served 10°

lower

[Music]

a