Liebeck v. The McDonald's Restaurant , also known as McDonald's coffee box and hot coffee legislation , was the 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debates in the United States about tort reform. Although a New Mexico civilian jury gave $ 2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman suffering from third-degree burns in her hip area when she accidentally spilled hot coffee on her lap after buying it from a McDonald's restaurant, Liebeck earned $ 640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while he underwent skin grafts, followed by two years of medical treatment.
Liebeck's lawyers argue that, at 180-190 ° F (82-88 ° C), McDonald's coffee is broken, claiming it is overheated and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served elsewhere. McDonald has rejected several previous opportunities to receive less than what the jury eventually awarded. Jury damages include $ 160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensation and $ 2.7 million in damages. The court judge reduced the final decision to $ 640,000, and the parties set an undisclosed amount before the appeal was set.
This case is said by some to be an example of reckless litigation; ABC News called the "posters of excessive lawsuits" case, while legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy case". In June 2011, the premiere HBO Hot Coffee , a documentary that explored in depth how the Liebeck case has centered on the debate over tort reform.
Video Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
​​â € <â €
Burn incident
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a cup of coffee 49 cents from a drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in a 1989 Ford Probe passenger seat that did not have a cup holder. His granddaughter parked the car so Liebeck could add cream and sugar to his coffee. Liebeck put the coffee cup between his knees and pulled the lid on him to release it. In the process, he spilled the whole cup of coffee on his lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton pants; they absorb coffee and hold it on their skin, making the skin of thighs, buttocks and groin.
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where he decided that he suffered third-degree burns on six percent of his skin and burns were smaller than six percent. He stayed in the hospital for eight days while he underwent a skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of his body weight), reducing his weight to 83 pounds (38 kg). After staying at the hospital, Liebeck needed treatment for 3 weeks, provided by his daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disability after the incident and partially disabled for two years.
Pre-trial
Liebeck attempted to finish with McDonald's for $ 20,000 to cover the actual costs and anticipations. Medical expenses in the past were $ 10,500; future medical expenses estimated at about $ 2,500; and the loss of her daughter's income of about $ 5,000 for a total of about $ 18,000. Instead, the company only offered $ 800. When McDonald refused to raise his offer, Liebeck arrested a Texas lawyer, Reed Morgan. Morgan filed a lawsuit in the New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "massive negligence" for selling "unreasonably dangerous" and "flawed" copies. McDonald declined Morgan's bid to receive $ 90,000. Morgan offered to receive $ 300,000, and a mediator suggested $ 225,000 before the trial, but McDonald's rejected this last pre-trial attempt to complete.
Maps Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
Trial and verdict
The trial took place from August 8-17, 1994, before New Mexico District Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's lawyer found that McDonald's obliged the franchisee to hold coffee at 180-190 ° F (82-88 ° C). At 190 ° C (88 ° C), coffee will cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's lawyers argue that coffee should not be served hotter than 140Ã, Â ° F (60Ã, Â ° C), and that a number of other companies serve coffee at temperatures much lower than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyer presented the jury with evidence that coffee 180 ° F (82 ° C) as presented by McDonald's can produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is required) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering temperatures up to 160 ° F (71 ° C) will increase the time for coffee to produce such combustion for up to 20 seconds. Liebeck's lawyer argues that these extra seconds can provide enough time to remove coffee from open skin, preventing many burns. McDonald's claims that the reason for presenting hot coffee in a drive-through window is that those who buy coffee are usually commuters who want to drive with coffee; a high initial temperature will keep the coffee warm during the trip. However, it was revealed that McDonald's has conducted research showing that customers intend to consume coffee immediately while driving.
Another document obtained from McDonald's shows that 1982-1992 the company has received over 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffees for varying degrees of severity, and has resolved claims arising from boiling sores for over $ 500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that the number of injuries is not enough to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argues that all foods that are hotter than 130Ã, Â ° F (54Ã, Â ° C) are a danger of burning, and that restaurants have a more urgent danger to worry about. The plaintiffs argue that Appleton acknowledges that McDonald's coffee will burn the mouth and throat if it is consumed when it is served.
The jury of twelve men reached the verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative omissions, the jury found that McDonald was responsible for the 80% incident and 20% Liebeck guilty. Despite warnings in coffee cups, the jury decided that the warning was not big enough and not enough. They gave Liebeck $ 200,000 in damages, which were then reduced by 20% to $ 160,000. In addition, they awarded $ 17 million in punitive damages. The jury seems to arrive at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to punish McDonald for a day or two of coffee income, which is about $ 1.35 million per day. The judge reduced the compensation penalty to $ 480,000, three times the amount of compensation, for a total of $ 640,000. The decision was filed by McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties went out of court with an undisclosed amount of less than $ 600,000.
Aftermath
This case is considered by some to be an example of reckless litigation. ABC News called the case "posters children of excessive lawsuits". Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy case". McDonald's insists that the outcome of the case is accidental, and links the loss of poor communication and strategy with an unknown insurance company that represents the franchise. Liebeck's lawyer Reed Morgan and the US Trial Lawyers Association defended the result at Liebeck claiming that McDonald's reduced its coffee temperature after the lawsuit, though it did not. [ citation needed ]
Detractors argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than $ 800 settlements for $ 10,500 in medical bills indicates that the lawsuit was unfounded and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled coffee on himself rather than making mistakes on the company's part. They also argue that the coffee is not defective because McDonald's coffee complies with industry standards, and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today in McDonald's and chains like Starbucks. They further stated that most judges who considered similar cases fired them before they became judges.
Liebeck died on 5 August 2004, at the age of 91. According to his daughter, "burns and litigation (has taken) their toll" and in the years after Liebeck's settlement has "no quality of life", and that settlement has paid for a nurse who lives at home.
Similar demands
In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), 7th Circuit Court of Justice, Judge Frank Easterbrook writes unanimously asserting the dismissal of a similar lawsuit against the coffee maker Bunn-O-Matic coffee maker, found that 179 ° F (82Ã, Â ° C) hot coffee is not "nonsensical dangerous".
In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in England failed when the court rejected claims that McDonald's could avoid injury by serving coffee at lower temperatures.
Because of Liebeck, major coffee sellers, including Chick-Fil-A, Starbucks, Dunkin 'Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King, hospitals, and McDonald's have been accused in the same lawsuit associated with burns associated with coffee.
Coffee temperature
In 1994, a spokeswoman for the National Coffee Association said that McDonald's coffee temperature is in line with industry standards. The "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182Ã, Â ° F (69 and 83Ã, Â ° C), and two tested coffee outlets, one Burger King and one Starbucks, serving coffee hotter than McDonald's.
Because of Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the temperature of its coffee service. Today's McDonald's policy is to serve coffee at 80-90 ° C (176-194 ° F), relying on a firmer warning on a cup made of rigid foam to avoid future responsibilities, despite continuing to face demands legal over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports a better packaging method than lowering the temperature when coffee is served. The Association has succeeded in assisting the defense of the next burning cases of coffee. Similarly, in 2004, Starbucks sold coffee at 175-185 Â ° F (79-85 Â ° C), and the Executive Director of the American Specialty Coffee Association reported that the standard service temperature was 160-185 Â ° F (71-85 Â ° C).
Hot Coffee documentary
On June 27, 2011, HBO aired a documentary on tort reform issues entitled Hot Coffee . Most of the film covers Liebeck's suit. These include news clips, celebrities and politicians' comments about the case, as well as myths and misunderstandings, including how many people thought he was driving when the incident occurred and thought he was just suffering from superficial burns. The film also explores in depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurant is often used and misused to describe a reckless and referenced lawsuit along with tort reform efforts. He argues that the company has spent millions promoting misunderstandings of tort cases to promote tort reform. In fact, most of the damage in the case was punitive because McDonald's' recklessly ignored the number of burn victims before Liebeck.
The New York Times Retro Report
On October 21, 2013, The New York Times publishes a Retro Report video of media reactions and accompanying articles about changes in coffee for more than 20 years. The New York Times notes how the details of the Liebeck story lose its length and context as it is reported worldwide. A follow-up article on Oct. 25 noted that the video had over a million views and has sparked a heated debate in online comments.
See also
- McDonald's law case
References
Further reading
- Rutherford, Denney G. (1998). "Lessons from Liebeck: QSRs Cool the Coffee". Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly . 39 (3): 72-75. doi: 10.1177/001088049803900314. ISSNÃ, 0010-8804.
- Enghagen, Linda K.; Gilardi, Anthony (2002). "Putting things in perspective: McDonald's and $ 2.9 million a cup of coffee". Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly . 43 (3): 53-60. doi: 10.1016/S0010-8804 (02) 80018-0. ISSNÃ, 0010-8804. Ã,
External links
- Stella Liebeck McDonald's Coffee Hot Case FAQ at Abnormal Use
- Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Use It to Promote Tort Reform? - video report by Democracy Now!
- Thinking McDonald's Hot Coffee Demand Falls Seriously? by David Haynes of The Cochran Firm
- Case Study: The Real Story Behind McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments