| Years
after it happened, people are still infuriated
that such tremendous amounts of money were
awarded to a case that was obviously
frivolous--or at least that is what nearly
everyone always says, happened. The facts,
however, indicate that nearly everyone is wrong.
Facts
In February of 1992 elderly Stella
Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her
grandson's car when she was severely burned by
coffee served in a Styrofoam cup at the
drive-through window of a McDonald's in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
After
receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car
forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck
could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
Liebeck
placed the cup between her knees and attempted to
remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she
removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup
spilled into her lap. The sweat pants she was
wearing absorbed the coffee, thus holding it next
to her skin.
A
vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered
full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over
6 percent of her body, including her inner
thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days,
during which time she underwent skin grafting.
Liebeck,
also underwent debridement treatments. (This is a
painful process involving the surgical removal of
lacerated, devitalized, or contaminated skin
tissue. In a burn case it usually requires
repeated removal of tissues that accumulate
between daily wound cleanings. --DLT)
Liebeck
sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but
McDonald's refused.
During
discovery (a litigation process
requiring parties to reveal information to each
other--DLT), McDonald's produced
documents showing more than 700 claims by people
burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some
of these claims involved third-degree burns
substantially similar to Liebeck's.
These
claims documented McDonald's knowledge about the
extent and nature of their scalding hot coffee.
McDonald's
also said during discovery that, based on a
consultant's advice, it held its coffee at
between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. Their representative
admitted that he had not evaluated the safety
ramifications at this temperature.
Other
establishments sell coffee at substantially lower
temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees (40 to 55
degrees less than McDonald's "holding
temperature" --DLT).
Further,
McDonald's quality assurance manager testified
that the company actively enforces a requirement
that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees,
plus or minus five degrees. He also testified
that a burn hazard exists with any
food substance served at 140 degree or above,
and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at
which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not
fit for consumption because it would burn the
mouth and throat.
The
quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no
intention of reducing the "holding
temperature" of its coffee.
A
Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics
as applied to human skin burns, testified that
liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven
seconds. Other testimony showed that as the
temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the
extent of the burn relative to that temperature
decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill
had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid
would have cooled and given her time to avoid a
serious burn.
McDonald's
asserted that customers buy coffee on their way
to work or home, intending to consume it there.
However, the company's own research showed that
customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
McDonald's
also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and
that its customers want it that way. The
company admitted its customers were unaware that
they could suffer third-degree burns from the
coffee and that a statement on the side of the
cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the
writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The
jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory
damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000
because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck
$2.7 million in punitive damages, (which is money
awarded as a way of punishing McDonald's) which
equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.
Post-verdict
investigation found that the temperature of
coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had
dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
The
trial court subsequently reduced the punitive
award to $480,000--or three times compensatory
damages--even though the judge called McDonald's
conduct reckless, callous and willful.
SOURCE:
http://www.maryalice.com/cases/mcdonald.html
Commentary
As you can see from the above, the Jury was
obviously angered.
At
1.35 million dollars a day in coffee sales,
McDonald's could easily afford a ten year period
of settling a little over 700 cases.
McDonald's
settled each of those 700 claims for less than
what Liebeck initially asked, but even if
McDonald's had paid out $20,000 per each of the
700 claims (Liebeck's initial settlement offer)
they would have paid $14,000,000 (that's $20,000
x 700 cases during a 10 year period) while
earning $486,000,000.00 (that's 1.3 million
dollars per day multiplied by the 3,650 days that
constitute 10 years).
So
those people who were injured were just part of
the cost of doing business--a relatively small
cost of a lot less than 14 million dollars spent
by McDonald's while earning 486 million dollars.
Why,
that's just good business isn't it? Even if YOU
were one of the people that required skin grafts,
right?
Ms.
Liebeck was injured and ignored by an insensitive
and unconcerned company that was "reckless,
callous and willful" (according to the
judge) in continuing a dangerous practice even
though people had been injured hundreds of
times--all in the name of profit.
--DL Tolleson
|