There is a nationwide call for “tort
reform,” which is the movement to limit
the rights of individuals to justice when they
are injured by the negligence of another person
or a company.
When proponents of “tort reform”
cite runaway jury verdicts, they often cloud certain
facts and omit others to persuade Americans of
the soundness of their cause. The decade-old McDonald’s
coffee case is a prime example. When the verdict
was reported in 1994, talk show hosts like Paul
Harvey jumped on the story and railed against
the verdict as evidence of a system gone mad.
The facts paint a much different picture.
In September 1992, then 79-year
old Stella Liebeck was a passenger in her grandson’s
car when they went through the drive-thru at an
Albuquerque, New Mexico McDonald’s. (Contrary
to reports, Ms. Liebeck was not driving the car,
nor was the car moving at the time her coffee
spilled.) Without another surface to put her cup
on, Ms. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between
her knees to put cream in it, and when she tried
to remove the plastic lid, the entire cup of coffee
spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Ms. Liebeck was wearing
absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
A vascular surgeon determined that Ms. Liebeck
suffered third-degree burns over six percent of
her body. She was hospitalized for eight days
and underwent skin grafting and painful surgical
treatments to remove dead and dying tissue. She
had permanent scarring over the burned areas.
Ms. Liebeck asked McDonald’s to pay her
$20,000 in medical expenses. McDonald’s
flatly refused.
McDonald’s produced documents
showing more than 700 other customers had complained
of being scalded by McDonald’s coffee during
the years 1982-1992. Some of those scalded were
children and infants. Many of the 700 cases resulted
in out-ofcourt settlements in amounts as high
as $500,000. McDonald’s also confessed that
it based its coffee temperature on a consultant’s
recommendation, and that the company had never
considered the safety issues related to coffee
that is served between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Similar restaurants serve their coffee at approximately
135-140 degrees.
During trial, the McDonald’s
quality assurance manager testified that he knew
that a burn hazard exits with any food product
served at more than 140 degrees, and that McDonald’s
coffee, being at least 40 degrees hotter, was
unfit for human consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. He also testified that he
had no intention of lowering the temperature,
even when reminded of the 700 known instances
of customers being burned by McDonald’s
coffee.
An expert testified that at 180
degrees, McDonald’s coffee would cause third-degree
burns in two to seven seconds. Had the coffee
been 155 degrees—still 15 degrees hotter than
the average fast-food restaurant’s coffee—it could have cooled sufficiently to avoid a
serious burn. McDonald’s admitted that it
did not warn customers that its coffee could produce
third-degree burns, and offered no reason for
its failure to warn.
The jury found that Ms. Liebeck
suffered $200,000 in damages for her medical expenses
and disability, however the amount was reduced
by 20 percent ($40,000) because the jury determined
that Ms. Liebeck was 20 percent at fault for spilling
the coffee. Such a reduction is not available
in North Carolina, where, if a person is at all
responsible for his or her own injury, he or she
recovers nothing.
The jury determined that McDonald’s
had engaged in conduct that should be punished,
and included $2.7 million in punitive damages
in its verdict. The amount represents two days’
profit for McDonald’s coffee sales only.
Since a corporation cannot be jailed, punitive
damages are meant to punish. To punish a global
corporation effectively the damages amount must
be large enough for the corporation to feel an
impact. The trial court refused to order a new
trial for McDonald’s, stating that the company’s
conduct was “callous.” The court eventually
reduced the total verdict to $480,000.
The McDonald’s coffee case
was not an example of the jury system run amok.
In fact, it shows that cases such as Ms. Liebeck’s
against corporations demonstrate the power that
one lone consumer can have. A post-verdict investigation
showed that the Albuquerque McDonald’s lowered
the temperature of its coffee to about 158 degrees.
The next time
you hear someone bemoaning the litigation “crisis”
facing our nation, be wary of the stories about
runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits. There may
be a real “rest of the story” you’re
not being told.
|
