MYTHS

McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

Critics of civil justice and juries have continually used the McDonald's coffee case, as the prime example of frivolous lawsuits. However, it was McDonald's own conduct that led to the jury's decision in the now infamous case.

Facts About the Case

• The plaintiff was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. She had ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.
• Critics claim that the plaintiff was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that the Plaintiff could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The Plaintiff placed the coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
• The sweat pants the plaintiff was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
• A vascular surgeon determined that the plaintiff suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree) over 6 percent of her body.
• She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).
• The plaintiff sought to settle her claim for $20,000 but McDonald's refused.

McDonald's Conduct.

• During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to the plaintiff's. The history documented McDonald's knowledge about extent and nature of this hazard. 
• McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
• Other restaurants sold coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
• Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
• McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
• Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.
• Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if the plaintiff's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn injury .
• McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intended to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
• McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
• By the end of the trial, a jury member told the Wall Street Journal, "The facts were so against overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers." The Jury's Verdict
• The jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found the plaintiff 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded the plaintiff $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equaled about the two days of McDonald's sales.
• The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000---or three times compensatory damages---even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

For more on this and other myths visit:

www.atla.org/Rights.aspx

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/pr/prOO4620.php3

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/justice

The TRUTH About the Civil Justice System, The ATLA Press Room, Association of
Trial Lawyers of America,
http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivoulous/THETRUTHciviljusticesystem.aspx