There is a lot of misinformation floating around concerning the famous McDonald's espresso case. Most trial attorneys have encountered at least one prospective juror who has pointed out this case as an example of the frivolous lawsuit. A case, most think, exactly where a lady got millions of dollars for spilling espresso on herself while trying mix and drink her coffee whilst driving. These aren't the actual facts with the case. Here is the accurate version of the facts of the situation. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was within the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, who was 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive through window of a local McDonald's. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her espresso. As I pointed out above, most people believe that Ms. Liebeck was driving or that the vehicle was moving in the time the espresso spilled. Neither is true. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup among her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid that was tightly secured to the cup. As she removed the lid, most with the espresso within the cup spilled into her lap. Ms. Liebeck was wearing a running suit that absorbed the espresso and held it next to her skin. She sustained 3rd degree burns (also known as full thickness burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent melt away treatment and skin grafting. Ms. Liebeck also underwent debridement treatments, which is the removal with the burnt skin. If that doesn’t sound painful, I don’t know what does. Ms. Liebeck brought a claim against McDonald’s in which she sought approximately $20,000. I presume this was primarily to cover her out of pocket medical expenses. Nevertheless, McDonald's denied it had done anything wrong and refused to provide any settlement amount. During the situation, McDonald's produced its personal documents showing that among 1982 and 1992 much more than 700 claims had been presented to McDonalds by individuals who had been burned by its espresso. The degree with the burns varied from case to case but some claims involved 3rd degree burns similar to Ms. Liebecks. Actually, some with the people were mere kids and infants and some were burned due to accidental spilling by McDonald's employees. This history showed that McDonald's had prior knowledge that its espresso was capable of burning individuals, and in some instances, severely burning them. Throughout the situation, McDonald's also said that a consultant advised McDonalds ought to keep its coffee heated at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. The consultant admitted that he had not evaluated the safety consequences of selling espresso at this temperature. It was established throughout the situation that other establishments regularly sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and that coffee served at house is generally among 135 to 140 degrees. In fact, a McDonald's high quality assurance manager testified that the organization actively enforces the requirement that coffee be kept in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. The manager also testified that a burn hazard existed with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's espresso, at the temperature it was kept at, was dangerous simply because it could burn the mouth and throat. The manager admitted that he knew burns would occur, but also testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its espresso. Ms. Liebeck’s attorney hired an expert witness who was a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns. He testified that liquids at 180 degrees will trigger a 3rd level burn or complete thickness burn down towards the fatty tissue and muscle to human skin in only two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the melt away damage relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Ms. Liebeck's coffee had been 155 degrees rather than the 180-190 degrees, she would have had around 60 seconds before she suffered a third degree melt away, enough time to avoid a serious burn. So what was McDonald’s excuse for keeping the coffee so hot in spite of understanding it was dangerous to its customers? McDonald's asserted that clients purchase coffee on their way to work or house, intending to consume it there and so it wanted to make certain the espresso was going to remain hot for when the customer reached his or her destination. In spite of this assertion, it was discovered that the company's personal research showed that most clients intended to begin to consume the coffee immediately upon receiving the espresso. McDonald's also argued that consumers know espresso is hot and that its customers want it that way. McDonald’s did admit that its customers had been unaware that they could suffer third level burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location with the writing would not warn customers with the hazard. So what really happened in the end with the trial? The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical bills, pain and suffering and other items. The jury also awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s egregious behavior selling the espresso in the harmful temperature whilst understanding it would pose a grave danger towards the wellbeing of its customers. The $2.7 million figure only equals about two (two) days worth of McDonald's espresso sales. Only two days. After the trial, at a separate with just the attorneys and the judge, the judge reduced the $200,000 compensatory damage award to $160,000 simply because the jury discovered Ms. Liebeck 20 percent at fault in causing the spill. The judge was required to create this reduction dueto the jury finding some fault on Ms. Liebeck in causing the spill. The judge also reduced the punitive damage award from $2.7 million to $480,000 even though the judge himself called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. At some point later on, Ms. Liebeck and McDonalds agreed to a private settlement. It's interesting to note that not long following the case ended, an investigation found that the McDonald’s where Ms. Liebeck was injured had reduced the temperature of its coffee to 158 degrees. Whilst this is still hot, it takes almost a complete 60 seconds to trigger a third level melt away at this temperature as opposed to the 2-7 seconds it takes for 180 degree espresso to cause a third level melt away.
Article Source: http://www.articlecontentprovider.com/articlesubmit
There is a lot of misinformation floating around concerning the famous McDonald's coffee situation. Most trial attorneys have encountered at least one prospective juror who has pointed out this case as an example of the frivolous lawsuit. A situation, most think, where a lady got millions of dollars for spilling espresso on herself whilst trying mix and drink her coffee whilst driving. These are not the actual facts with the case. Here is the accurate version with the facts with the situation.
Mark A. Risi is an Orlando personal injury lawyer that specializes in wrongful death claims, theme park accidents, Orlando car accident lawyer, and more.
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 5 4 out of 5 3 out of 5 2 out of 5 1 out of 5
