Fire & Burn Injuries

Our question this week comes from Sheila of Mill Valley who asks, “Why do juries hand out punitive awards like the McDonald’s coffee case? I mean, if people burn themselves with coffee why should they be paid for it. These kinds of frivolous lawsuits and runaway juries are harming the ability of businesses to compete.”

Sheila, this is a topic that comes up in almost every jury selection process that I go through. Inevitably, when asking jurors about their thoughts on people who bring lawsuits, or who seek recovery for pain and suffering, someone uses the words “frivolous lawsuit” and/or brings up the McDonald’s coffee case. Unfortunately, insurance PR agents and the pro-corporate Chamber of Commerce, have deliberately distorted the facts so as to prejudice people (including jurors) against those who seek compensation for injuries caused by others.

The case you speak of is Liebeck v McDonald’s brought by Stella Liebeck after a cup of McDonald’s coffee spilled on her lap when she, as a passenger parked in her grandson’s car, sought to add cream and sugar to her coffee they had purchased at the drive-through. The coffee, at over 180 degrees, was absorbed by her cotton sweat pants, and held against her body, thereby causing third degree burns on 6 percent of her body and second degree burns on 16% of her body. She was in the hospital for 8 days and had to have numerous skin grafts including in the area of her genitalia. She had years of subsequent medical treatment for her skin burns.

Ms. Liebeck had originally sought to have McDonald’s only pay her medical bills of approximately $18,000.00. McDonald’s refused offering her $800.00. Ms. Liebeck retained a well-qualified trial lawyer to take on McDonald’s which was represented by high priced attorneys who sought to blame Ms. Liebeck for being burned.

Information at trial demonstrated that McDonald’s required its vendors to keep coffee at temperatures between 180-195 degrees, hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns within a few seconds. Documents produced in the trial showed that McDonald’s had received over 700 reports of people being burned in the ten years preceding Ms. Liebeck being burned. Rather than adjust its coffee temperature, McDonald’s had paid out over $500,000.00 to settle claims by burn victims. McDonald’s saw an economic advantage in keeping its coffee at scalding temperatures. The McDonald’s quality control manager testified at trial that 700 reported burns was an “insignificant number” which did not warrant investigating, or changing, its food safety practices.

A twelve person jury rendered a verdict awarding Liebeck $200,000.00 for her past and future medical care, wage loss, and pain and suffering. Ms. Liebeck was found to be 20% responsible and the award was reduced to $160,000.00. The jury penalized McDonald’s for its indifference towards those being burned and awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; one to two days of coffee sales. The judge reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000.00. (Judges have the authority to reduce an award if the jury is believed to have awarded an excessive amount.)

You should watch the movie “Hot Coffee,” it is a documentary on the case and how the insurance industry and big moneyed interests have distorted the truth and facts behind the case.

Twelve jurors heard the facts of the case and made an informed decision. Hundreds of millions have heard the misinformation which trivializes Ms. Liebeck’s injuries and vilifies the trial lawyers who stood up for a 79 year-old burn victim against a global corporate giant like McDonald’s.

In the end, you have to consider whether you would prefer to trust twelve ordinary citizens, skeptics like yourself, who have heard the facts and reached a verdict (from the Latin word for truth), or allow a well-funded disinformation campaign to prejudice you. Trust me, the juries that I appear in front of are smart, carefully test the evidence, and render well-reasoned awards. Indeed, many are people just like you who, despite their initial bias against plaintiffs, after hearing the facts, award fair and appropriate compensation.