Chapter Introduction
The McDonald’s coffee spill is the most famous consumer lawsuit in the world. Everyone knows about this case, and the details involved in it continue to be debated in many different venues—
classrooms, Web sites, blogs, law schools, and business schools. Regardless, it serves as one of the best platforms in the world for discussing what companies owe their consumer stakeholders and
what responsibilities consumers have for their own well-being. Over 20 years later, consumers, lawyers and analysts are still debating the world famous coffee spill case.
Keeping the topic hot is the 2011 documentary film, Hot Coffee, which analyzes the famous coffee spill, sets the facts straight, and highlights the ongoing debate about the impact of tort reform on
the U.S. judicial system. The film premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival and aired on HBO during June 2011. It won many awards.

Stella Liebeck
Stella Liebeck and her grandson, Chris Tiano, drove her son, Jim, to the airport miles away in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the morning of February 27, 1992. Because she had to leave home early,
she and Chris missed having breakfast. Upon dropping Jim off at the airport, they proceeded to a McDonald’s drive-through for breakfast. Stella, an active, 79-year-old, retired department-store
clerk, ordered a McBreakfast, and Chris parked the car so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
What occurred next was the coffee spill that has been heard ‘round the world. A coffee spill, serious burns, a lawsuit, and an eventual settlement made Stella Liebeck (pronounced Lee-beck) the
“poster lady” for the bitter tort reform discussions that have dominated the news for more than 20 years. To this day, the issue is subject to a continuing debate
Third-Degree Burns
According to Liebeck’s testimony, she tried to get the coffee lid off. She could not find any flat surface in the car, so she put the cup between her knees and tried to get it off that way. As she
tugged at the lid, scalding coffee spilled into her lap. Chris jumped from the car and tried to help her. She pulled at her sweatsuit, but the pants absorbed the coffee and held it close to her
skin. She was squirming as the 170-degree coffee burned her groin, inner thigh, and buttocks. Third-degree burns were evident as she reached an emergency room. A vascular surgeon determined she had
third-degree (full thickness) burns over 6 percent of her body.
Hospitalization
Following the spill, Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital and about three weeks at home recuperating under the care of her daughter, Nancy Tiano. She was then hospitalized again for skin
grafts. Liebeck lost 20 pounds during the ordeal and at times was practically immobilized. Another daughter, Judy Allen, recalled that her mother was in tremendous pain both after the accident and
during the skin grafts.
According to a Newsweek report, Liebeck wrote to McDonald’s in August 1994, asking them to turn down the coffee temperature. Though she was not planning to sue, her family thought she was due about
$ 2,000 for out-of-pocket expenses, plus the lost wages of her daughter who stayed at home with her. The family reported that McDonald’s offered her $800

Stella Files a Lawsuit
After this, the family went looking for a lawyer and retained Reed Morgan, a Houston attorney, who had won a $30,000 settlement against McDonald’s in 1988 for a woman whose spilled coffee had
caused her third-degree burns. Morgan filed a lawsuit on behalf of Liebeck, charging McDonald’s with “gross negligence” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively
manufactured.” Morgan asked for no less than $100,000 in compensatory damages, including pain and suffering, and triple that amount in punitive damages.
McDonald’s Motion Rejected
McDonald’s moved for summary dismissal of the case, defending the coffee’s heat and blaming Liebeck for spilling it. According to the company, she was the “proximate cause” of the injury. With
McDonald’s motion rejected, a trial date was set for August 1994.
As the trial date approached, no out-of-court settlement occurred. Morgan, the attorney, said that at one point he offered to drop the case for $30,000 and was willing to settle for half that
amount, but McDonald’s would not budge. Days before the trial, the judge ordered the two parties to attend a mediation session. The mediator, a retired judge, recommended McDonald’s settle for
$225,000, using the argument that a jury would likely award that amount. Again, McDonald’s resisted settlement.
The Trial
The trial lasted seven days, with expert witnesses dueling over technical issues, such as the temperature at which coffee causes burns. Initially, the jury was annoyed at having to hear what at
first was thought to be a frivolous case about spilled coffee, but the evidence presented by the prosecution grabbed its attention. Photos of Liebeck’s charred skin were introduced. (These dramatic
photos are shown in the documentary, Hot Coffee.) A renowned burn expert testified that coffee at 170degrees would cause second-degree burns within 3.5 seconds of hitting the skin.
The Defense Helped Liebeck
Defense witnesses inadvertently helped the prosecution. A quality-assurance supervisor at McDonald’s testified that the company did not lower its coffee heat despite 700 burn complaints over ten
years. A safety consultant argued that 700 complaints—about one in every 24 million cups sold—were basically trivial. This comment was apparently interpreted to imply that McDonald’s cared more
about statistics than about people. An executive for McDonald’s testified that the company knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but it was not planning to go beyond the tiny print
warning on the cup that said, “Caution: Contents Hot!” The executive went on to say that McDonald’s did not intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, “There are more
serious dangers in restaurants.”
In the closing arguments, one of the defense attorneys acknowledged that the coffee was hot and that that is how customers wanted it. She went on to insist that Liebeck had only herself to blame as
she was unwise to put the cup between her knees. She also noted that Liebeck failed to leap out of the bucket seat in the car after the spill, thus preventing the hot coffee from falling off her.
The attorney concluded by saying that the real question in the case is how far society should go to restrict what most of us enjoy and accept.
Chapter Contents
23-5The Jury Decides
The jury deliberated for about four hours and reached a verdict for Liebeck. It decided on compensatory damages of $200,000, which it reduced to $160,000 after judging that 20 percent of the fault
belonged to Liebeck for spilling the coffee. The jury concluded that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, which is the basis for punitive damages. The jury
decided upon a figure of $ 2.7million in punitive damages.
Company Neglected Customers
One juror later said that the facts were overwhelmingly against the company and that the company just was not taking care of its customers. Another juror felt the huge punitive damages were
intended to be a stern warning for McDonald’s to wake up and realize its customers were getting burned. Another juror said he began to realize that the case was really about the callous disregard
for the safety of customers.
Public opinion polls after the jury verdict were squarely on the side of McDonald’s. Polls showed that a large majority of Americans—including many who usually support the little guy—were outraged
at the verdict. But, of course, the public did not hear all the details presented in the trial.
Judge Reduces Award
The judge later slashed the jury award by more than 75 percent to $640,000. Liebeck appealed the reduction, and McDonald’s continued fighting the award as excessive. In December 1994, it was
announced that McDonald’s had reached an out-of-court settlement with Liebeck, but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed due to a confidentiality provision. The settlement was reached to
end appeals in the case. We will never know the final ending to this case because the parties entered into a secret settlement that has never been revealed to the public. Because this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting, some lawyers think that such secret settlements after public trials should not be condoned.

Debate over Temperature
Coffee suddenly became a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America put coffee safety on its agenda for discussion. A spokesperson for the National Coffee Association
said that McDonald’s coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. A spokesperson for Mr. Coffee, the coffee-machine maker, said that if customer complaints are any indication, industry
settings may be too low. Some customers like it hotter. A coffee connoisseur who imported and wholesaled coffee said that 175degrees is probably the optimum temperature for coffee because that’s
when aromatics are being released. Coffee served at home is generally 135– 140degrees. McDonald’s continued to say that it is serving its coffee the way customers like it. As one writer noted, the
temperature of McDonald’s coffee helps to explain why it sells a billion cups a year.
Later Incidents
In August 2000, a Vallejo, California woman sued McDonald’s, saying she suffered second-degree burns when a disabled employee at a drive-through window dropped a large cup of coffee in her lap. The
suit charged that the disabled employee could not grip the cardboard tray and was instead trying to balance it on top of her hands and forearms when the accident occurred in August 1999. The
victim, Karen Muth, said she wanted at least $ 10,000for her medical bills, pain and suffering, and “humiliation.” But her lawyer, Dan Ryan, told the local newspaper that she was entitled to
between $ 400,000 and $500,000. Attorney Ryan went on to say, “We recognize that there’s an Americans with Disabilities Act, but that doesn’t give them (McDonald’s) the right to sacrifice the
safety of their customers.” It is not known how this lawsuit was settled.

Suits Go Global
It was also announced in August 2000 that British solicitors have organized 26 spill complainants into a group suit against McDonald’s over the piping hot nature of its beverages. One London lawyer
said, “Hot coffee, hot tea, and hot water are at the center of this case. We are alleging they are too hot.” Since that time other lawsuits have been filed around the world
Burned by a Hot Pickle
In a related turn of events, a Knoxville, Tennessee woman, Veronica Martin, filed a lawsuit in 2000 claiming that she was permanently scarred when a hot pickle from a McDonald’s hamburger fell on
her chin. She claimed the burn caused her physical and mental harm. Martin sued for $110,000. Martin’s husband, Darrin, also sought $15,000 because he “has been deprived of the services and
consortium of his wife.” According to Veronica Martin’s lawsuit, the hamburger “was in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous to the general consumer and, in particular, to her.” The
lawsuit went on to say: “while attempting to eat the hamburger, the pickle dropped from the hamburger onto her chin. The pickle was extremely hot and burned the chin of Veronica Martin.” Martin had
second-degree burns and was permanently scarred, according to the lawsuit. One report was that the McDonald’s owner settled this case out of court
Issue Won’t Go Away
23-8aThe Stella Awards
For more than 20 years now, the coffee spill heard’round the world continues to be a subject of heated debate. The coffee spill and subsequent trial, publicity, and resolution “prompted a tort
reform storm that has barely abated.” One school of thought held that it represents the most frivolous lawsuit of all time. In fact, a program called the “Stella Awards” was begun to recognize
each year’s most outrageous lawsuit. The awards were the creation of humorist Randy Cassingham, and his summaries of award-winning cases may be found on the Stella Awards Website. In actuality,
most of the lawsuits he chronicles are far more outrageous than the coffee spill in which Stella Liebeck did get seriously injured. On the other hand, consumer groups are still concerned about
victims of what they see as dangerous products, and they continue to assail McDonald’s callous unconcern for Stella Liebeck.
In the ensuing decades, lawsuits over spilt beverages have continued to come and go, but most of them have been resolved with less fanfare than Stella’s case. As for S. Reed Morgan, the lawyer who
successfully represented Stella Liebeck, he has handled only three cases involving beverages since Liebeck’s suit. Morgan has turned down many plaintiffs, saying he is interested in such cases only
if they involve third-degree burns.
Another Scalded-Granny Case
It was reported in summer of 2004 that Morgan has a new McDonald’s coffee case that resembles the Liebeck case. This case involves Maxine Villegas, a grandmother in her 70s, who was a passenger in
a car stopped at a drive-through, where coffee splashed on her legs and resulted in third-degree burns. In a deposition, Villegas testified coffee spilled on her legs when her sister was passing
her the cup of coffee.
The Villegas case did not turn out to be another Liebeck case. Matt Fleischer-Black, writing in The American Lawyer, perhaps summarized it well by saying it was likely to generate jokes on Jay Leno
and David Letterman but that in light of the Liebeck case it would keep the coffee industry on alert for another decade to come.
The outcome of the Villegas case has not been made public. Lawsuits of this type are often stretched out over years or get settled with no public announcement
A Lawsuit in Moscow
Coffee spill cases have even gone global. In fact, a long-running case against McDonald’s in Moscow was closed in 2006 by a Moscow court after the claimant withdrew her $34,000 lawsuit. Olga
Kuznetsova filed a lawsuit against the company after hot coffee was spilled on her in a Russian McDonald’s. Kuznetsova claimed that a swinging door hit her while she was walking out onto the
restaurant’s terrace with a full tray. She demanded 900,000 rubles (about $34,000) in damages. McDonald’s lawyers said she had nobody to blame but herself because the paper cup carried a warning
that the coffee was hot. This denial of fault prompted her to go to court.
Suits Continue
There is likely no end in sight for coffee spill-type cases. In a 2013 lawsuit, a woman passenger on Continental Airlines sued the company for $170,550 after a cup of hot coffee was spilled on her
during her flight. She claimed the hot coffee resulted in second degree burns and permanent scarring on her inner thighs.

Chapter Review
Questions For Discussion
1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incidents? Was the lawsuit “frivolous” as some people thought, or serious business?
2. What are McDonald’s social (economic, legal, and ethical) responsibilities toward consumers in the Liebeck case and the other cases? What are consumers’ responsibilities when they buy a
product such as hot coffee or hot hamburgers? How does a company give consumers what they want and yet protect them at the same time?
3. What are the arguments supporting McDonald’s position in the Liebeck case? What are the arguments supporting Liebeck’s position?
4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you most likely have supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the pickle burn case?
5. What are the similarities and differences between the coffee burn cases and the pickle burn case? Does one represent a more serious threat to consumer harm? What should McDonald’s, and
other fast food restaurants, do about hot food, such as hamburgers, when consumers are injured?
6. What is your assessment of the “Stella Awards”? Is this making light of a serious problem?
7. What are the implications of these cases for future product-related lawsuits? Do we now live in a society where businesses are responsible for customers’ accidents or carelessness in using
products? We live in a society that is growing older. Does this fact place a special responsibility on merchants who sell products to senior citizens?

After reading case 23, consider the following questions:
What are McDonald’s responsibilities towards consumers in this case?
What are consumers’ responsibilities when they buy products such as these?
What are the arguments supporting McDonald’s position in this case, and what are the arguments supporting Liebeck’s position?
Are you FOR or AGAINST Tort Reform, why?
What other companies have been in the news recently for failing to meet consumer obligations; what happened?