[37][38] The New York Times noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide. Scott. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). [6] Ex-attorney Susan Saladoff sees the manner in which the case was portrayed in the media as purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influence. And once she spilled her coffee, they said, she should have removed her clothes immediately. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. Thought the McDonald's Hot Coffee Spilling Lawsuit was Frivolous? [2][19], A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. Beyond that, the facts become murky for most people. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Some restaurants go a bit hotter, up to 160 F; that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 20 seconds, which gives people enough time to wipe it off before it does too much damage. Stella Liebeck never regained the strength and energy she had before she was burned. [5] Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. In reality, the majority of damages in the case were punitive due to McDonald's' reckless disregard for the number of burn victims prior to Liebeck. McDonald’s had a reason for requiring its coffee to be served at that temperature, reported the Wall Street Journal—it tasted better. “The company knew its coffee was causing serious burns,” notes the museum, “but it decided that, with billions of cups served annually, this number of burns was not significant.” Liebeck was concerned about the others who had burned, and especially that the 700 other victims included children. Camera! Consumer advocates suggest that painting McDonald’s as the victim was a way for business interests and certain lawmakers to create a narrative about frivolous lawsuits in an effort to advance a tort reform agenda that would hamper consumer rights and strengthen a lack of corporate accountability. The total was $2,735,000 more than Liebeck’s lawsuit had requested. Their point seemed to turn off jurors. “I am just astounded at how many people are aware of this case and how many people have a distorted view of the case,” said daughter Judy Allen. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. “We couldn’t believe that this much damage could happen over spilled coffee,” Liebeck’s daughter, Judy Allen, said in Scalded by the Media, a 2013 documentary about the case. [2] The jury damages included $160,000[citation needed] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The film also discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life", and that the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. Her family, understandably, was appalled. Find the facts of the hot coffee lawsuit interesting? They awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages. Here are some of the commonly overlooked facts of the case formally known as Liebeck v. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. “I was in it because I want them to bring the temperature down so that other people wouldn’t go through the same thing I did.”. She sues her way to a $2.7 million jury-awarded jackpot. The defense countered that the number of complaints was statistically insignificant, given the billions of cups of McDonald’s coffee sold annually. On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old widow, was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s Ford Probe ordering a Value Meal at the drive-through window of an Albuquerque, New Mexico, McDonald’s. “I wanted to take the top off the coffee to put cream and sugar in,” Liebeck told a local news station at the time. During man-in-the-street interviews for the documentary Hot Coffee, one woman said of Liebeck, “People are greedy and want money. After seven days of testimony and four hours of deliberation, the jurors sided with Liebeck. “I’m a nurse, and I was horrified by the type of injuries that she had sustained,” said Liebeck’s daughter-in-law, Barbara Liebeck. [3], The case was said by some to be an example of frivolous litigation;[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[5] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". That’s when Liebeck contacted a lawyer. The public generally ridiculed Liebeck – the media hook was the story of an Albuquerque woman who cleaned up with $2.7 million for spilling coffee on herself. ‘Oooh, my coffee was too hot.’ It’s coffee! As Scalded by the Media showed, although the original Albuquerque Journal article about the trial ran at 700 words, subsequent pickup and wire-service articles were far shorter and left out important details. [36] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). 1993 WL 13651163, District Court of New Mexico, (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. The Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Used it to Promote Tort Reform? [27], Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck became the poster child for frivolous litigation after filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for serving coffee that was too hot. Case Study: The True Story Behind the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit. Famous 'Cursed' Movies, Flint Water Whistleblower Wins the Goldman Environmental Prize, 12 U.S. Nevertheless, “I think the initial award certainly got everybody’s attention, not necessarily in a favorable way,” said Farnham. Hot coffee lawsuits have popped up periodically in court ever since Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, better known as the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit of 1994. In 1992, 79-year old Stella Liebeck became the poster child for frivolous litigation after filing a lawsuit against McDonald’s for serving coffee that was too hot. [7] In June 2011, HBO premiered Hot Coffee, a documentary that discussed in depth how the Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform. [27], In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in England failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.[29]. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although it is not clear whether McDonald's in fact had done so. [4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits". They also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the trial judge reduced to $480,000, even though he called McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The final settlement was even less. But if that’s your policy, we ask you to worry about your policy.”. [39], An October 25 follow-up article noted that the video had more than one million views and had sparked vigorous debate in the online comments. 113 (October 2001), which describes the accident in detail, Amended Complaint about Damages, Stella LIEBECK, Plaintiff, v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS, P.T.S, Inc. and McDonald's Corporation, Defendants. McDonald’s responded with an offer of $800. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded. After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter. Tragedy! Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. “It must be an aberration. McDonald’s reps suggested that the blame lay with Liebeck for holding the cup between her legs. On a lighter note than the hot coffee lawsuit, read about the funniest court cases of all time. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The next burn comes from the media, and her life is … 700 other people prior to Liebeck had suffered from McDonald’s scalding coffee, yet the company maintained its policy. “There was a person behind every number, and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,” juror Betty Farnham told the Wall Street Journal. Liebeck pursued the case in court, and not to gouge the fast-food giant for cash, but to make a difference. Since the was was filed, people have pursued hot coffee claims against not just McDonald’s but Burger King, Dunkin’ Donuts, Starbucks, Continental Airlines, and other companies. On the one hand, truly frivolous lawsuits make sensible people want to bang their heads against the wall, but the importance of holding corporations responsible for wrongdoing shouldn’t be diminished. At the time, McDonald’s required its franchises to brew its coffee at 195 to 205 degrees and sell it at 180 to 190 degrees, far warmer than the coffee made by most home coffee-brewing machines. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. The case is considered by some to be an example of frivolous litigation. Liebeck's lawyers also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 3 seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. The Real Story Behind the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit. An elderly woman is burned when she spills a cup of hot coffee on her lap. [2] However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. [2][12], Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. It wasn’t like the McDonald’s employee took the coffee and threw it on her.” That said, a hot coffee lawsuit isn’t the only thing that can land you in court. “If you’re lucky, it will produce second-degree burns,” he said. [16] Instead, the company offered only $800. McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensation for her pain and medical costs, a figure that was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent responsible. We are no longer supporting IE (Internet Explorer) as we strive to provide site experiences for browsers that support new web standards and security practices. Her argument: The coffee was too hot. “When you read, ‘Woman’ … ‘Coffee’ … ‘Millions’ … it sounds like a rip-off,” John Llewellyn, a professor of communication at Wake Forest University, said. 252, 254 n.1 (1995), U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, "A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million", "Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway | Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system", "Hot Coffee Filmmaker Says Contributions Produce Biased Judges", "Watch Hot Coffee, a Powerful New Film on HBO June 27", "Frivolous Lawsuits and How We Perceive Them", "The must-watch TV show of the night: 'Hot Coffee' on HBO", "The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction", "Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case", "Angelina and Jack McMAHON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUNN-O-MATIC CORPORATION, James River Paper Company, and Wincup Holdings, L.P., Defendants-Appellees", "Bogle & Ors v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd", "Local woman sues National Franchise over coffee", "McDonald's hit with 2 hot-coffee lawsuits", "A Hot Tip for Coffee Lovers: Most Retailers Prefer to Make It Scalding", "Huntingdon & St Ives latest news - Burger chain sued after boy's ordeal", The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ.

Variable Current Limiter, Index Of The Wedding Ringer, Uk Flag Meaning, Tomo Take Out Menu, Adviser Adviser, How Many Yachts Does Michael Jordan Own, On Food And Cooking Publisher, Stanley Burrell Stage Name, Daring Greatly Meaning, Completed Chinese Novels, Emilio Navaira Accident, I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing Slogan, Luc Besson Movies On Netflix, A Film Unfinished Essay, Adelaide 500 Race Start Time, Ft To Nautical Miles, Numeracy Intervention In Secondary Schools, When I Was A Boy Poem, All You Can Eat Sushi Vaughan, Carrie Pilby Trailer,


Kommentarer

hot coffee lawsuit — Inga kommentarer

Lämna ett svar

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *