Posted on 11/23/2004 2:32:55 PM PST by Ironclad
Many lawyers might like to believe that the American legal system is known internationally for the landmark deci¬sions studied in law school: Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, or any of the other semi¬nal cases. Those more cynical might acknowledge that the Klaus von Bulow drama, the OJ. Simpson case, or the Martha Stewart affair have gotten more public attention. So when we travel abroad and talk to foreign lawyers, expecting them to be impressed that we are representatives of the legal system that brought the world Roe v. Wade or at least brought the Menendez brothers to TV screens worldwide, we might be surprised, embarrassed, or outright horrified that the most famous case in American history is — undoubtedly — a tort action about spilled coffee.
That's right, whether it is barristers in London or bengoshi in Tokyo, our foreign counterparts do not think of the American justice system in terms of its landmarks. Instead, they wonder how a country as seemingly sophisticated in legal matters as the U.S. could permit a woman who spilled hot coffee on her¬self to shirk personal responsibility and sue McDonald's for millions. And what kind of people are Americans that a jury would actually make an award to such a the minds of millions worldwide, the spilled coffee case represents everything wrong with America: people eager to blame their actions on others, a society so spoiled that it cries in sympathy over spilled coffee, and that ignorant body of laymen, uneducated in the law yet responsible for making legal decisions — the American jury.
The McDonald's coffee spill case will probably never sit in law textbooks beside Pakgraffot International Shoe, but the facts of the case should be better known. Here's what really happened:
On the morning of February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck was riding in the car with her grandson Chris. They had just dropped her son off at the Albuquerque airport, and stopped for breakfast at a McDonald's drive-thru on the way home. Stella ordered a McBreakfast, and Chris pulled the car over so that she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. As Stella pulled the lid off the coffee cup, scalding coffee spilled onto her lap. Chris jumped from the stationary car and tried to help her, as she tugged at her sweat suit to pull it away from her skin. The coffee, which was probably around 170 degrees when it spilled, took only three seconds to produce third-degree burns on her genitals, inner thigh, and buttocks. By the time Stella reached the hospital emergency room, she was in excruciating pain, and her groin area had suffered permanent damage.
Stella spent eight days in the hos¬pital while she underwent painful skin grafting and treatment for debridement of her wounds. She was immobilized for several months after that and had to return to the hospital for additional grafts. Stellas daughter had to leave work to care for her during the recuperation period. Two years after the accident Stella finally felt well enough to confront McDonald's about her injury. She wrote to McDonald's and, without making any financial demand, asked them politely to lower the coffee temperature. McDonald's wrote back and offered her $800, less than half of what her family estimated she was due for out-of-pocket medical expenses. Angered at the offer, which they perceived as a bribe to "shut her up," Stella's family retained Reed Morgan, a Houston attorney who had won a $30,000 settlement against McDonald's in 1988 for a woman whose spilled coffee had also caused her third-degree burns.
Morgan filed suit on behalf of StellaLiebeck, asking for $100,000 in compensatory damages, including pain and suffering, and triple that amount in punitive damages. McDonald's moved for summary judgment, contending that Stella was the proximate cause of her own injuries. The motion was denied, and the trial date was set for August 1994. Twice before the trial began, Morgan offered to settle, first for $300,000, then for $225,000. McDonald's rejected both offers.
During the seven-day trial jurors heard the following key points of evidence:
McDonald's sold its coffee at 185 degrees, despite the industry standard of serving coffee between 120 and 130 degrees. McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforced the policy of serving coffee that hot because consumers would buy the coffee on their way to work and expect it to reach drinkable temperature upon arrival. He acknowl¬edged that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, would burn the mouth and throat.
If the coffee that spilled into Stella's lap had been just fifteen degrees cooler, at 155 degrees it would have cooled substantially as it seeped through her clothes and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonald's had been aware of the serious burn risk from its scalding coffee for more than ten years. This risk had been brought to its attention through numerous other lawsuits, most of which it had quietly settled out of court.
Between 1982 and 1991 McDonald's had recorded more than 700 instances of bums to consumers from scalding coffee, not only to adults but also to children and infants. Despite this, McDonald's own witnesses testified that the company had no intention of either reducing the heat or warning its customers that the coffee was dangerously hot.
The jury awarded Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medi¬cal costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that she was 20% respon¬sible. Based largely on the callousness that McDonald's witnesses had shown towards Stella and the hundreds of other burned customers, the jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000, although he called McDonald's behavior "willful and reckless". The case settled with appeals by both sides pending. The settlement included an agreement that the settlement amount would remain confidential.
When the media publicized the case, many lawmakers were quick to turn it into an advertisement for tort reform, which was the subject of hot debate in the Republican-led Senate. Not only to corporate America, but also to many disinterested observers, the case became the paradigm of the frivolous lawsuit gone awry, a frightening example of the vulnerability of corporations in the face of an ignorant jury bent on vengeance.
In the end, Stella lived out the rest of her life in pain and disfigurement, with probably a few hundred thousand dollars to compensate her for years of rehabilitation and a daughter's lost wages. Maybe the settlement wasn't even that much. McDonald's has lowered its coffee temperatures, at least in Albuquerque, to 158 degrees, and now we all see the "CONTENTS HOT" warning on coffee lids.
Whether one agrees with the result or not, there is clearly more to the "hot coffee case" than the well known sound bite suggests. Recently another suit was filed against McDonald's in Texas, and Reed Morgan is again counsel for the plaintiff.
I've got news for you: it's not just people outside America that think our legal system is all screwed up.
Simply put...I am not responsible for the consequences of my actions. It's anybody's fault but mine.
I'm curious how that coffee could cause so much damage.I have spilled very recently boiled water on my hands without much of a problem. I'm not authorataive on the subject though.
I hear that Red China and Iran have a legal system you would like.
It was written by plaintiff's attorneys to try to justify the legitimacy of the lawsuit.
Note that they go to great pains to show how lower the temp just 15 degrees would have prevented all those injuries and pain and suffering.[after going to great pains to show what her injuries were]
They do not address the fact that no one forced this moron to open the coffee above her genital area, and had she taken the time to open her coffee inside or while standing or with it on the dashboard, she would not have been injured.
The lawsuit is one of many travesties forced on us by plaintiffs attorneys...a major reason why I refuse to belong to the ABA. [The other is that these legal morons don't recognize the second amendment is an individual right] That way I can answer truthfully on polygraph examinations that I do not belong to any subversive organizations intent on doing harm to the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.