Liebeck V. McDonald's Restaurants

Liebeck V. McDonald's Restaurants

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages (in addition to $2.7 million in punitive damages) to Stella Liebeck who suffered 1st and 2nd degree burns in her pelvic region when she spilled hot coffee purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the final verdict, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case was noted by some as an example of frivolous litigation; ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", while Myron Levin of LA Times stated that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".

Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded. Supporters of “tort reform" claim that the popular perception of the case was materially accurate, claim that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury, and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills reflects the meritless nature of the suit based on the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.