|
Many people remember the so-called "public outrage" over the multi-million dollar hot coffee case. Thanks to a well-crafted public relations campaign by large corporations and insurance companies, a verdict that was delivered almost fifteen years ago still resonates in the minds of Americans. The verdict generates the misguided belief that there is a "litigation crisis" in this country - a crisis so significant that juror sympathy tends to tip in favor of defendants in personal injury claims. The lack of balanced reporting about this case has allowed large insurance interests to limit their vulnerability in the civil justice system - all at the expense of injured individuals.
Everyone remembers the name of the defendant, McDonalds, as if it was the victim in this story. The real victim was an elderly woman named Stella Liebeck. Had the whole hot coffee story been completely reported and effectively publicized, Americans would have correctly sympathized with Mrs. Liebeck. The untold story is as follows: The plaintiff was Stella Liebeck. She was a 79-year-old woman who came from a long line of conservative republicans. Mrs. Liebeck was a drive-through customer at an Albuquerque McDonalds. She was a passenger in a car driven by her grandson. After ordering a cup of coffee, Mrs. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs since the car was not equipped with a cup holder. While the car was stopped, Mrs. Liebeck removed the lid from the cup to add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled causing third degree burns to her inner thighs and private parts. Mrs. Liebeck underwent painful skin grafts and was hospitalized for several days. She was permanently disfigured. Her medical bills and economic loss were approximately $200,000.00. Mrs. Liebeck suffered immensely. Her body weight was reduced to a mere 86 pounds and she was partially disabled for about two and half years. Mrs. Liebeck was willing to settle with McDonalds for $20,000.00. Concerned about the safety of other people, Mrs. Liebeck also demanded that McDonalds reduce the temperature of its coffee. McDonald’s offered $800.00 and refused to change its coffee policy. Mrs. Liebeck turned to an attorney for help. During the course of the lawsuit expert testimony and other evidence revealed the following: It was McDonald’s policy to serve its coffee at temperatures between 195 and 205. McDonalds had received more than 700 complaints of serious burns from hot coffee. McDonalds received notice from Shriners Burn Institute that it had treated numerous patients suffering burns from hot coffee. McDonalds executives had known for years that their hot coffee policy could burn to the bone, but did nothing to protect the safety of its customers. The jury recognized McDonald’s incredible and lack of concern for its customer and awarded $160,000.00 in economic damages reflecting a 20% reduction for Mrs. Liebeck’s partial responsibility for the injury. In addition, the jury awarded 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages which represented just two days of McDonald’s coffee profits. The jury hoped to encourage McDonalds to change its dangerous coffee policy. Under-reported was the fact that the judge reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000.00. In doing so, however, the judge concluded the McDonalds deserved punishment for its disregard for the safety of its customers. The next day, news reporters checked out the coffee temperature at the local McDonalds drive-through. It was reduced to a safe level of 158 degrees. Mrs. Liebeck later settled the case for and undisclosed sum, far less than the verdict. LESSON LEARNED is that principled claimants together with effective legal counsel can prove the truth, bring about justice and in some cases can even correct an unsafe situation.
| 
