The USA has a reputation for being a country of frivolous lawsuits. The foremost example of this phenomenon is the case brought by Stella Liebeck against McDonald’s after she spilt coffee on herself. The case is ridiculed as an example of how lawsuit-happy Americans can be, but the truth is that while there are many frivolous lawsuits in the USA, this is not one of them.
Stella Liebeck was 79 years old in 1994 when she attempted to open a coffee cup lid to put milk and sugar into it. She was in a car with her son, and their car model had no cup holders, so she put the cup between her legs to open the lid while the car was stopped. In the process of opening the lid, however, she spilt coffee that was 82-88°C on her legs, which soaked into her trousers and kept the hot liquid there. This caused third-degree burns in her thighs and groin area, which required skin grafting and care for three weeks, and she suffered from partial disability for two years.
But the case settled for $2.8 million, so surely that amount is still excessive? Well, Liebeck initially only sought $20 thousand based on her past expenses, expected expenses, and her daughter’s lost income caring for her, but McDonald’s offered 4% of this amount, an insulting sum. Unsurprisingly, Liebeck sued, and her lawyers argued that McDonald’s coffee, in addition to being about ten degrees hotter than what was sold in other chains, also caused third-degree burns in three to fifteen seconds (depending on whether the coffee was 88 to 82 degrees), while that of other establishments would have given her longer to react. This also meant that the coffee would burn the throat and mouth when served, thereby making it defective. McDonald’s averaged a burn complaint (of varying severity) approximately every month between 1982 and 1992, so the problem was not exactly unknown either. The jurors likely decided to set the penalty of McDonald’s at 2 days of coffee revenue, which is where the $2.8 million figure comes from. A judge reduced this to $640 thousand, but the parties later settled out of court.
This case, however, generated lots of publicity. McDonald’s was largely portrayed as the victim in the media, since Liebeck spilt the coffee on herself. However, if we are to bring British principles into this case, we see that, like in Donoghue v Stevens, there was a duty of care on the part of McDonald’s to ensure that, even if such a mistake had occured, that it would not result in such severe injury. By 2013, McDonald’s had reduced the temperature of their coffee, though they had not done so in 2007. The media backlash against Liebeck also means that many people think she was driving or that she had only suffered superficial burns, according to a documentary (‘Hot Coffee’) released on the topic in 2011. Ultimately, the bulk of this case falls in the court of public opinion, as Liebeck did not see an end to the backlash in her lifetime, having died 10 years after the case. There has not been much research done on the impact of this media coverage, but I find it fascinating that the result of this case, where an elderly woman has suffered intense damage, has been turned into the posterchild for frivolous lawsuits. As such, Liebeck vs McDonald’s Restaurants is the case of this week.