Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants Lawsuit

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, commonly known as the McDonald's hot coffee case, is a 1994 U.S. product liability dispute in which a restaurant customer sued McDonald's after being scalded by coffee served at a drive-through window. Although it was a single-plaintiff case rather than a class action, it became one of the most frequently cited touchstones in American debates over the scope of product liability litigation.

Product and manufacturer

McDonald's operates a global fast-food restaurant chain, much of it through independently owned franchisees that must follow corporate operating standards. The product at issue was the hot coffee sold at McDonald's drive-throughs. In the underlying incident, the plaintiff, a 79-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck, was a passenger in a car that had stopped at a McDonald's in New Mexico so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. When she opened the lid, the full contents of the cup spilled across her lap. Her cotton sweatpants absorbed the liquid and held it against her skin, producing severe scalding of the thighs, buttocks, and groin.

The harm

Liebeck was taken to a hospital emergency room and found to have third-degree burns over a portion of her body, along with lesser-degree burns over a wider area. She remained hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin-grafting procedures and then required continued care for roughly two years. She was left with permanent disfigurement and a period of partial disability.

Litigation

Before any lawsuit, Liebeck asked McDonald's to settle for an amount intended to cover her actual and expected medical expenses. McDonald's declined to move its initial offer upward, and the dispute proceeded to court. Her attorney filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, before Judge Robert H. Scott, alleging gross negligence and contending that the coffee was unreasonably dangerous and defectively prepared.

The case was tried in 1994. The central contest was temperature. The plaintiff's side argued that McDonald's required its franchisees to hold coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than the coffee served by other local establishments, and presented expert testimony that liquid at that range can produce third-degree burns in a matter of seconds. The trial record also included internal McDonald's materials showing that the company had received numerous prior reports of coffee-burn injuries. McDonald's defended the serving temperature by arguing that drive-through customers typically carry the coffee for a drive and that the high initial heat was needed to keep it warm, and that all hot food and drink presents some burn risk.

Outcome

The case concluded in 1994 with a jury verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court subsequently reduced. Both sides pursued appellate review, but the parties reached a confidential settlement before the appeal was decided. This archive does not record a docket number for the matter.

In the years since, the case has remained a fixture of tort-reform discussion. Proponents of litigation reform have pointed to it as an emblem of excessive lawsuits, while legal commentators have described the claim as a serious injury case that was distorted by media coverage. An HBO documentary, Hot Coffee, examined the case and its role in that debate. Burns from hot beverages continue to generate individual personal-injury claims against a range of food-service operators, with outcomes that vary by jurisdiction and facts.