Liebeck vs. McDonalds Case Study: Exploring Tort Law and Liability

This case study delves into the infamous Liebeck vs. McDonalds case, where Stella Liebeck suffered severe burns from McDonald's coffee. The analysis addresses whether Liebeck was partially responsible for her injuries, considering her actions and the company's knowledge of the coffee's dangerous temperature. It evaluates the judge's criticism of McDonald's conduct as reckless and willful, referencing the numerous prior incidents. Furthermore, the case study explores the appropriate amount of compensatory and punitive damages Liebeck should have been awarded, taking into account the physical and psychological trauma she endured, including third-degree burns and skin grafting. The discussion references legal perspectives on tort law and liability, ultimately providing a comprehensive overview of the case's key issues and implications. Desklib provides solved assignments and past papers for students.

HOT COFFEE!!! Groups of ~4-6 people. Worth 5%
Stella Liebeck (79 yrs old) was in the passenger seat of her
grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds'
coffee in February 1992. Liebeckordered coffee that was
served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a
local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward
and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and
sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees
and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she
removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
(Two things to note: In 1992 most cars did not havecupholders, and in 1992 it was uncommon
for restaurants to add the cream/sugar to coffee for you.)
A surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered third-degree burns to over 6% of her
body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital areas. She was hospitalized
for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin
grafting, and other medical treatments.
Liebeckofferedto settle her claim for $20,000 (her
medical costs from the accident), but McDonalds
refused.
During pre-trial discoveries, McDonalds produced
documents showing that more than 700
peopleclaimed they were burned by McDonalds coffee. Some claims involved
third-degree burns similar to Liebeck’s. These documents indicated McDonalds'
knowledge about the dangers of hot coffee.
McDonalds also said that, based on a consultant’s advice, McDonalds kept its
coffee temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees
Celsius). McDonalds says this temperature gives their coffee optimum taste.
McDonalds admitted that they had not evaluated the danger of coffee at this
temperature. Other restaurants sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures,
and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 °F (57-60 °C).
1

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be kept at 180 to 190 °F. He also
testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 °F or
above, and that McDonalds coffee is dangerous to drink 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 temperature
of its coffee.
An expert in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids
at 180°F will cause 3rd degree burns within 7 seconds. Other testimony showed
that with a temperature around 155°F, the extent of the burn significantly
decreases. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155°F, the liquid would
have cooled quicker, and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds argued that consumers know coffee is hot and
that customers want it that way. But, the company admitted
that customers were unaware they could suffer 3rddegree
burns from the coffee. They also said 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% at fault in the
spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive
damages.
McDonalds appealed (of course). They won the appeal and
the punitive damages were reduced to $480,000 even though
the judge called McDonalds' conduct “reckless, callous and
willful”.
(By the way: An investigation done after the trial found that the temperature of coffee at the
McDonalds where Stella spilled her drink had dropped to 158 °F.)
The parties eventually agreed to an out of court settlement which has never been
revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in
public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
2

Task: Your group – as a whole - must answer the following questions. Answer
directly on this page. Use the back if you need to. ONE answer sheet per group.
NAMES:
Please be sure to put the FULL name (as it appears on registration) of all group
members.
1. Do you agree that Stella Lieback was 20% responsible for her injury?
Should she be held more/less responsible? Why or why not? 3 marks.
Answer: Yes, according to me Stella was responsible 20% for her injury. It is
Stella’s responsibility that she should have held her coffee carefully because
she was aware of the fact that the company serves the coffee at this
temperature according to the preferences of the consumers. Along with
this the way she was holding the coffee cup was unwise, as the law of
inertia indicates that when a object is in motion , a halt will affect the
object and the body still remains in motion. But here it can also not be
ignored that the McDonalds experts would have warned the customer
about the temperature of the coffee as a caution.
2. The judge called McDonalds conduct “reckless, callous and willful.” Do
you agree with this criticism? Why or why not? 3 marks.
Answer: Yes, I agree with the criticism of the Judge because it was not the
first incident at the premises of the restaurant (Greene, 2012). There were
many such incidents that occurred earlier as well with the same degree of
burns. So here it becomes the responsibility of the company to place a
notice that shall be visible to the customer and the customer becomes
alert. Secondly, the McDonalds would have trained its staff so that they
would have advised the customer about the temperature of the coffee.
3. How much money do you think Stella Lieback should have been awarded?
Consider compensatory and punitive damages. Tell me why. 4 marks.
Answer: According to me Stella would have been paid $200,000 as a
compensation along with $2.7million. As this amount would be enough to
compensate Stella of the psychological as well as physical damages that she
suffered. The coffee spilled on her genital area, buttocks and thigh due to
which she had to undergo skin grafting (Hylton, 2016).
3

References
Greene, B. (2012). Tort Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hylton, K. (2016). Tort Law: A Modern Perspective. New York: Routledge Publications.
4

5