This text comes from The Washington Center for Consumer Law. I'm reproducing it here because their website doesn't respond. The text was retrieved from Google. No author is cited on the page. This text is Copyright (C) 2000 WSTLA.
The McDonald's Coffee Case
Sorting through fact and fiction....
Myth: An opportunistic old woman launched a frivolous lawsuit when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on her lap.
Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.
The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.
McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.
McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.
A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald's refused and the case went to trial.
McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.
Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.
A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge's reduction and the final outcome of the case.
Punitive damage awards are not currently allowed under Washington law. Juries undoubtedly return verdicts when faced with a large corporate defendant who has ignored reasonable pleas to resolve such situations or grievances.
In this case, McDonald's simply refused to turn down the heat, so the jury turned it up on McDonald's.
(Original page at http://www.consumerrights.net/mcdonalds.html )
More information can be found at http://www.caoc.com/facts.htm
|
|  | | | | | | ENTRY DATA
| |  | Edited by:
Jim Lynn. Ten Glorious Years...
| | | | | | Referenced Sites:
Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed.
| | | | | | | |
|
|
Home
Start a new conversation