Law Offices of Michaella Levandoski, PLLC

On August 18, 1994 a court released the verdict for what has become a joke about a lady suing McDonald because the coffee was hot. However, there is more to case than what has become a joke about coffee being hot. Several reputable organizations have tried to get the facts out there to show that the coffee was at a dangerously hot temperature and that it was not the first time McDonald’s coffee had burned someone so badly they needed surgery (or multiple surgeries) as a result of burns suffered. In an effort to help get the facts out, below is a summary of what is commonly misunderstood about that case. This case can be used as a good example of how “spin” or optics can be used by companies.

The Consumer Attorneys of California pointed out that there had been at least 700 cases of burns reported to McDonalds in the 10 years before this incident. McDonalds was serving coffee between 180-190 degrees, which can cause third degree burns within 3-7 seconds.

The Texas Trial Lawyers Association addressed that the Ms. Liebeck’s attorney presented evidence to the jury that third degree burns do not heal without surgery, and that McDonalds knew about the risk of serving coffee this hot for at least 10 years before Ms. Liebeck was burned. It is also worth noting that Ms. Liebeck offered to settle for $20,000 but McDonald refused. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages (minus $40,000 for her being 20% at fault) and $2.7 million in punitive damages since McDonald had known about the dangers of serving coffee this hot and had previous claims from people (including babies) being injured and they did not change. What may have been the nail in the coffee was that a witness said McDonald knew about the dangers, did not warn customers, and had no plans to change how hot they served their coffee.

The CBC pointed out in an article from January 2023 that the judge reduced the settlement to $640,000. The article points out that lawsuits about hot beverages being served too hot have continued throughout the years. Several people have pushed for regulations about how hot beverages can be served.

The American Museum of Tort Law points out that the distorted narrative was picked up, because there were business interests in creating the story that frivolous lawsuits are common. The museum also points out that Ms. Liebeck in offering to settle asked McDonalds to consider changing the excessive temperature that coffee was served at so that others would not be hurt like she had been hurt.

The case is one that is a pet peeve of mine when people make a joke about it as a frivolous lawsuit because 700 people, including infants, had been hurt before Ms. Liebeck and McDonald’s knew about it and did nothing to lower the temperature of the coffee they were serving, until after this case. The punitive damages that the jury awarded is probably what caused McDonalds to change the temperature of their coffee. Which is what Ms. Liebeck asked for when trying to just have her medical expenses paid when she asked for $20,000. It makes one wonder if coffee would still be served so hot if McDonalds had just settled with Ms. Leibeck.