The woman was maimed and it was the franchisee’s fault.
No, was the punishment appropriate? I don't know. Was the cases excessive? Not when it is viewed in the proper context.
But again, that is not exciting nor newsworthy. Facts are sometimes detrimental to a good story.
And that's why McDonalds got spanked.
I use the case as an example in products liability class. Not that a product can't be dangerous, just that the danger has to be justified. Others have posted the legal cure for McD ... to have coffee temperature be set by some rational means (market preference), and controlled. That is much better than "as hot as we can make it" (to get aroma in the restaurant, which causes food sales to increase), and "50 serious burns is statistically insignificant" (so why should we even consider selling it at a temperature other than "as hot as we can make it").
From Wiki: "Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82.2–87.8 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. "
and
"On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, which didn't have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[12]"
Temperatures over 140 farenheit will scald immediately, yet most coffee is served between 160-195 degrees. My Keurig is at the high end of that scale and brews at 192 degrees, two degrees above the coffee in the McDonald's case. I have yet to burn myself (except, on occasion, my tongue), because I know it's hot.
Yea, I've heard that argument, i.e. McDonalds purposefully made the coffee very hot, so that breakfast customers would linger, THUS she was burned worse than she would have been if it was a lower temperature.
My answer to that is, "So?". If it wasn't the first cup of coffee that she had ever gotten from McDonald's then she was well aware of the temperature. Common sense dictates that ordering hot beverages in the drive-thru is a Caveat Emptor action. When the cup enters your hand, its your baby, and your responsibility.
The ideal water temperature for brewing coffee is 195-205 degrees F. The hottest temperature that unpressurized water can be at is 212F. So your case is either that we should all get subpar coffee, or that 7 deg F makes a huge difference in the severity of burns.
If someone dumps a cup of coffe on you, it is there bad, but I'm having a hard time seeing a human arm that is long enough to reach from inside McDonalds all the way to inside the woman's car.
“I know this is not a popular stance...but the coffee was more than hot. It was scalding hot.”
They sued McDonalds because the coffee was 180-190 degrees.
Do you know what a home coffemaker heats coffee to? According to national standards for coffeemakers, they heat it to 170-205 degrees, or an average of 187.5 degrees. McDonald’s was sued for making coffee that was of AVERAGE temperature.
Most fast food places still serve their coffee at around 185 deg.