View source for Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

{{Short description|1994 product liability lawsuit}}
{{Redirect|Hot coffee case|similar uses|Hot Coffee (disambiguation)}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2023}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2023}}
{{Infobox court case
| name               = Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
| full name          = Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc.
| date decided       = August 18, 1994
| citations          = 1994 Extra [[LEXIS]] 23 ([[Bernalillo County]], [[N.M. Dist. Ct.]] 1994), 1995 [[Westlaw|WL]] 360309 ([[Bernalillo County]], [[N.M. Dist. Ct.]] 1994),
| transcripts        =
| judges             = Robert H. Scott
| prior actions      =
| subsequent actions =
| opinions           =
| keywords           =
| court              = Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County
}}
'''''Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants''''', also known as the '''McDonald's coffee case''' and the '''hot coffee lawsuit''', was a highly publicized 1994 [[product liability]] lawsuit in the United States against the restaurant corporation [[McDonald's]].<ref>''[[Case citation#State courts|Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants]], P.T.S., Inc.,'' No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 [[Westlaw|WL]] 360309 ([[Bernalillo County]], [[N.M. Dist. Ct.]] August 18, 1994), [https://web.archive.org/web/20161030205148/http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-202-CV-9302419 docket entry from nmcourts.com]</ref>  A jury found McDonald's liable for injuries suffered by a customer who spilled hot coffee on herself, and awarded her in excess of $2.8 million (${{Inflation|US|2.8|r=1|1994}} million in {{Inflation/year|US}}).

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004),<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Simmons |first=Andy |url=https://www.rd.com/article/hot-coffee-lawsuit/ |title=Remember the Hot Coffee Lawsuit? It Changed the Way McDonald's Heats Coffee Forever |magazine=Reader's Digest |date=2021-07-15}}</ref> a 79-year-old woman, purchased hot coffee from a McDonald's restaurant, accidentally spilled it in her lap, and suffered [[third-degree burn]]s in her pelvic region. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing [[skin grafting]], followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to [[Settlement (litigation)|settle]] with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the [[U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico]], accusing McDonald's of [[gross negligence]].

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at {{convert|180|-|190|F|C}}, McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment.<ref name="Burks1994">{{cite news |last1=Burks |first1=Susanne |title=McDonald's Settles Coffee-Burn Suit |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/albuquerque-journal-mcdonalds-settles-c/170128419/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Albuquerque Journal |date=December 1, 1994 |page=1 |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}</ref> The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. Liebeck was awarded a net $160,000<ref>{{Cite web |title=Liebeck v. McDonald's |url=https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ |access-date=2022-01-13 |website=www.tortmuseum.org |date=2016-06-13 |language=en-US}}</ref> in [[compensatory damages]] to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million ({{Inflation|US|2700000|1994|r=-5|fmt=eq}}) in [[punitive damages]]. The trial judge [[remittitur|reduced]] the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.<ref>{{cite news |title=McDonald's settles lawsuit over burn from coffee |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=1994-12-02 |at=B6}}</ref>

The Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over [[tort reform]]. It was cited by some as an example of [[frivolous litigation]];{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=701}} [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",<ref name="ABCNews20070502"/> while the legal scholar [[Jonathan Turley]] argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".<ref name="Turley"/> Ex-attorney Susan Saladoff sees the portrayal in the media as purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influence.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/wxOIBzBBjh0 Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20200615235056/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOIBzBBjh0&gl=US&hl=en Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web |last1=Pacchia |first1=Lee |title=Hot Coffee Filmmaker Says Contributions Produce Biased Judges |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOIBzBBjh0 |website=[[YouTube]] |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] |date=2011-06-28}}{{cbignore}}</ref> In June 2011, [[HBO]] premiered ''[[Hot Coffee (film)|Hot Coffee]]'', a documentary that discussed in depth how the ''Liebeck'' case has centered in debates on tort reform.<ref>{{cite news |last=Tucker |first=Ken |author-link=Ken Tucker |title=The must-watch TV show of the night: 'Hot Coffee' on HBO |url=http://watching-tv.ew.com/2011/06/27/hot-coffee-hbo/ |access-date=2011-06-28 |newspaper=[[Entertainment Weekly]] |date=2011-06-27}}</ref>

==Burn incident==
Stella May Liebeck was born in [[Norwich]], England, on December 14, 1912.{{citation needed|date=April 2025}} On February 27, 1992, aged 79, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the [[drive-through]] window of a [[McDonald's]] restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in [[Albuquerque, New Mexico]]. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 [[Ford Probe]], which did not have cup holders.<ref name=ABQJOURNAL/> Her grandson parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gerlin |first1=Andrea |title=Spilled coffee worth $2.9-million |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/tampa-bay-times-spilled-coffee-worth-2/170128312/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Tampa Bay Times |date=September 2, 1994 |page=7A |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}</ref> She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.<ref name="retroreport2">{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?playlistId=100000002148738 |title=Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media |date=2013-10-21 |type=MP4 |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=2013-10-26}}</ref> In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.<ref>Michael McCann, William Haltom, and Anne Bloom, "Law & Society Symposium: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon", 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 113 (October 2001), which describes the accident in detail</ref> Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, [[scalding]] her thighs, buttocks and groin.<ref name="Gerlin">{{cite news |last1=Gerlin |first1=Andrea |date=1994-09-01 |title=A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million |url=http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf |url-status=dead |work=The Wall Street Journal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf |archive-date=2015-09-23 |access-date=2015-06-18}}</ref>{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|p=268}}

Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered [[third-degree burn]]s on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.<ref name="retroreport2"/>{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|p=268}} She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin [[Graft (surgery)|grafting]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kaufman |first1=Matthew |title=Coffee case a hot topic; facts cool debate |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/hartford-courant-coffee-case-a-hot-topic/170129074/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Hartford Courant |date=April 10, 1995 |page=A5 |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}</ref> During this period, Liebeck lost {{convert|20|lb|kg}}, nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to {{convert|83|lb|kg}}.<ref>{{cite news |title=Are Lawyers Burning America? |url=https://www.newsweek.com/are-lawyers-burning-america-180680 |access-date=April 13, 2025 |work=[[Newsweek]] |date=March 13, 2010}}</ref> After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.<ref name="injury.findlaw.com">{{cite web |author=FindLaw's team of legal writers |title=The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction |url=https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html |website=Findlaw}}</ref> Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.<ref name="HorseyRackley2013">{{cite book |last1=Horsey |first1=Kirsty |last2=Rackley |first2=Erika |title=Tort Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wZKcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA356 |date=2013-06-18 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-966189-3 |pages=356–}}</ref>{{sfn|Haltom|McCann|2009|pp=186ff}}

== Attempts to settle ==
Liebeck sought to [[Settlement (litigation)|settle]] with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's<ref name="injury.findlaw.com"/> loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.<ref>Amended Complaint about Damages, Stella LIEBECK, Plaintiff, v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS, P.T.S, Inc. and McDonald's Corporation, Defendants. 1993 WL 13651163, District Court of New Mexico, (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. October 5, 1993)</ref> McDonald's offered only $800.<ref name="JonesboroSun1995">{{cite news |title=Plaintiff's daughter says public has wrong perception of mother |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sun-plaintiffs-daughter-says-public/170128587/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Jonesboro Sun |agency=Associated Press |date=April 15, 1995 |page=12C |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case |url=https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts |access-date=2022-04-15 |website=www.caoc.org}}</ref>

When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained the Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the [[U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico]], accusing McDonald's of [[gross negligence]] for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial; McDonald's refused both.<ref name="Gerlin" />

==Trial==
The trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.<ref name="docket entry from nmcourts.com">''Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants'', [https://web.archive.org/web/20161030205148/http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-202-CV-9302419 docket entry from nmcourts.com]{{Full citation needed|date=March 2020}} <!-- 08/18/1994 NCJ: JURY TRIAL 12 PERSON::Filing Judgment entered solely against DF McDonald's and to PL for compensatory damages of $160,000.00 and punitive damages of 0$2,700,000.00plus interest and costs --></ref> During the case, Liebeck's attorneys [[discovery (law)|discovered]] that McDonald's required [[franchising|franchisee]]s to hold coffee at {{convert|180|-|190|F|C}}. Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than {{convert|140|F}}, and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20&nbsp;°F (11&nbsp;°C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that {{convert|190|F}} coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and {{convert|180|F}} coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds.<ref name="Gerlin" /> Lowering the temperature to {{convert|160|F}} would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-06-13 |title=Liebeck v. McDonald's |url=https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ |access-date=2022-05-15 |website=www.tortmuseum.org |language=en-US}}</ref>

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.  However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.gtla.org/index.cfm?pg=McDsScaldingCoffee |title=McDsScaldingCoffee |website=www.gtla.org}}</ref> Another of McDonald's reasons for serving such hot coffee is advice from consultants that high temperatures are necessary in brewing to fully extract the flavor.<ref name="Gerlin" />

Other documents showed that, from 1982 to 1992, McDonald's had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.<ref name="Gerlin" /> McDonald's [[quality control]] manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than {{convert|130|°F}} constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.<ref name="Gerlin" />{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|pp=270–272}}

=== Verdict ===
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.<ref name="docket entry from nmcourts.com" /> Applying the principles of [[comparative negligence]], the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in [[compensatory damages]], which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in [[punitive damages]]. According to ''[[The New York Times]]'', the jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues, about $1.35 million per day.<ref name="retroreport2"/><ref name="Gerlin" />

The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Major Holmes |first1=Sue |title=Award in scalding case reduced |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/concord-monitor-award-in-scalding-case-r/170128719/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=[[Concord Monitor]] |agency=Associated Press |date=September 15, 1994 |page=A10 |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}</ref> three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000.<ref name="JonesboroSun1995"/> The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.<ref name="Burks1994"/> The ''[[Albuquerque Journal]]'' ran the first story of the verdict, followed by the [[Associated Press]] wire, which was picked up by newspapers around the world.<ref>{{cite book |title=Document 00689724 - McDonalds scalding: woman burned by hot coffee gets $2.9 million |date=1994-08-18 |publisher=Associated Press |location=Albuquerque}}</ref>

==Aftermath==
The Liebeck case is often cited in a misleading manner by proponents of [[tort reform]], who present an inaccurate or incomplete summary of the facts in order to falsely frame the case as [[frivolous litigation]].{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=701}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=McCann|first1=Michael|first2=William|last2=Haltom|first3=Anne|last3=Bloom|title=Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon.|journal=U. Miami L. Rev.|volume=56|year=2001|issue=113|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umialr56&div=13&id=&page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|first1=Neil|last1=Malhotra|title=An Empirical Analysis of "Tort Tales": How Cultural Memes Influence Attitudes on Tort Reform|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/abs/an-empirical-analysis-of-tort-tales/02ED7989D10F8A3075B0B79ADACD26DF|journal=Journal of Law and Courts|date=21 October 2022|issn=2164-6570|pages=149–166|volume=3|issue=1|doi=10.1086/679018|url-access=subscription}}</ref> [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".<ref name="ABCNews20070502">{{cite web |last1=Pearel |first1=Lauren |title='I'm Being Sued for WHAT?' |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086 |website=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150327160920/http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086 |archive-date=March 27, 2015 |date=2007-05-02 |url-status=dead |access-date=June 28, 2020 }}</ref> The legal commentator [[Jonathan Turley]] called it "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".<ref name="Turley">{{cite web |last1=Levin |first1=Myron |title=Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway {{!}} Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system. |url=http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html |website=www.kentlaw.edu |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303195637/http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html |archive-date=2012-03-03 |date=2005-08-14 |url-status=unfit}}</ref> McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the [[Association of Trial Lawyers of America]] defended the result in ''Liebeck'' by claiming that McDonald's [[#Coffee temperature|reduced the temperature of its coffee]] after the suit, although McDonald's in fact had not done so.<ref name="CEN" />

Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2004/08/trial-lawyerjohn-edwards-propaganda-at-kos.html |title=Trial lawyer propaganda at kos |access-date=2008-05-14 |last=Bainbridge |first=Stephen |date=2004-08-01 |format=revised relocated blog entry |author-link=Stephen Bainbridge}})</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Sebok |first=Anthony J. |title=Dispatches from the Tort Wars |journal=Texas Law Review |date=November 2006 |volume=85 |pages=1509–1510}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Frank |first1=Ted |author-link1=Ted Frank |title=Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case |url=https://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/ |website=Overlawyered |date=2005-10-20}}</ref> They state that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury.<ref name="EASTERBROOK" />

Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, aged 91. 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]]. She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse.<ref name=ABQJOURNAL>{{cite news |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/upfront/061054231171upfront01-06-09.htm |title=Student Measured Heat in Coffee Case |last=Smith |first=Toby |newspaper=[[Albuquerque Journal]] |date=2009-01-06 |access-date=2015-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015064426/http://www.abqjournal.com/upfront/061054231171upfront01-06-09.htm |archive-date=October 15, 2015}}</ref>

===Similar lawsuits===
In ''McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation'' (1998), [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals]] Judge [[Frank Easterbrook]] wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer [[Bunn-o-Matic Corporation|Bunn-O-Matic]], finding that {{convert|179|°F|°C|abbr=on}} hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous".<ref name="EASTERBROOK">{{cite web |title=Angelina and Jack McMahon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bunn-O-Matic Corporation, James River Paper Company, and Wincup Holdings, L.P., Defendants-Appellees. |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1365042.html |website=Findlaw |date=1998-07-02}}</ref> In ''Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd.'' (2002), a similar lawsuit in the United Kingdom failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.<ref>{{cite web |author1=England and Wales High Court |author-link1=High Court of Justice |title=Bogle & Ors v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. |url=http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html |website=www.bailii.org |at=33 |language=en-UK |date=2002-03-25}}</ref>

Since ''Liebeck'', major vendors of coffee, including [[Chick-Fil-A]],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-your-morning-cup-of-joe%3F-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test. |last=Hurtado |first=Linda |title=Local woman sues National Franchise over coffee |date=2011-02-12 |access-date=2013-03-22 |work=ABC Action News |publisher=The E.W. Scripps Co. |archive-date=2011-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104205726/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-your-morning-cup-of-joe?-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test. |url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Starbucks]], [[Dunkin' Donuts]], [[Wendy's]], [[Burger King]],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.3news.co.nz/Woman-burned-by-hot-coffee-sues-Burger-King/tabid/417/articleID/282530/Default.aspx |work=3 News NZ |title=Burned woman sues Burger King |date=2012-01-10 |access-date=2013-01-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113071432/http://www.3news.co.nz/Woman-burned-by-hot-coffee-sues-Burger-King/tabid/417/articleID/282530/Default.aspx |archive-date=2013-11-13 |url-status=dead}}</ref> hospitals,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://wvrecord.com/news/180147-womans-estate-sues-over-hot-coffee?doing_wp_cron=1363993663.9430639743804931640625 |title=Woman's estate sues over hot coffee |last=O'Brien |first=John |date=2006-06-06 |access-date=2013-03-22 |work=The [[West Virginia Record]] |publisher=Madison County Record, Inc |archive-date=March 5, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305233117/http://wvrecord.com/stories/510590430-woman-s-estate-sues-over-hot-coffee |url-status=dead }}</ref> and McDonald's<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120323/NEWS07/120329881/mcdonalds-hit-with-2-hot-coffee-lawsuits |title=McDonald's hit with 2 hot-coffee lawsuits |last=Behme |first=Todd J. |date=2012-03-23 |access-date=2013-04-21 |publisher=[[Crain's Chicago Business]]}}</ref> have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. There have also been lawsuits over injuries from other hot liquids.<ref>{{cite news |last=Burke |first=Minyvonne |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-3-year-old-severely-burned-wawa-hot-water-gets-n1189891 |title=Family of 3-year-old severely burned at Wawa by hot water gets $3 million settlement |date=2020-04-22 |work=[[NBC News]]}}</ref> Two years prior to ''Liebeck'', a similar lawsuit was settled during the trial for $15 million due to injuries from a sink in a rented apartment.<ref>{{cite news |last=York |first=Michael |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/05/27/child-scalded-in-sink-to-get-15-million/f1fee38f-6f07-413c-a05a-21de9e89520f/ |title=Child Scalded In Sink To Get $15 Million |date=1992-05-27 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>

Another lawsuit involving McDonald's was heard in Florida with the restaurant sued after a four-year-old girl suffered second-degree burns after a chicken nugget from a Happy Meal fell in between her leg and the seatbelt.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-chicken-mcnugget-lawsuit-115737cffc47c539e3aed92daad264a4 |title=McDonald's found liable for hot Chicken McNugget that burned girl |date=2023-05-12 |publisher=[[AP News]] |access-date=2023-05-14}}</ref> McDonald's was found liable for negligence in the case and in July 2023 the girl, then eight years-old, was awarded $800,000 in damages.<ref>{{cite web |title=Jury awards Florida girl burned by McDonald's Chicken McNugget $800,000 in damages |url=https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-chicken-mcnugget-lawsuit-girl-burned-8a21d966b3db48089782352138538cd8 |publisher=[[AP News]] |access-date=2023-07-21}}</ref>

===Coffee temperature===
According to a 2007 report, McDonald's had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at {{convert|176|–|194|F|C}},<ref name="CEN">{{cite web |title=Huntingdon & St Ives latest news - Burger chain sued after boy's ordeal |url=http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 |website=www.cambridge-news.co.uk |access-date=2008-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515122340/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 |archive-date=2009-05-15 |date=2007-06-22}}</ref> relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee).<ref name="CEN"/>{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=724}} However, in 2013, ''the [[New York Times]]'' reported that McDonald's had lowered its service temperature to {{convert|170|–|180|F|C}}.<ref name="retroreport2"/> The [[Specialty Coffee Association of America]] supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=724}} Similarly, as of 2004, [[Starbucks]] sells coffee at {{convert|175|–|185|F|C}}, and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is {{convert|160|–|185|F|C}}.{{citation needed|date=August 2022}}

===''Hot Coffee'' documentary===
{{Main|Hot Coffee (film)}}

On June 27, 2011, [[HBO]] premiered a documentary about [[tort reform]] problems, ''[[Hot Coffee (film)|Hot Coffee]]''.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Schwartz |first1=John |title=Documentary Gives Hot Issue Caffeinated Jolt |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/arts/television/hbo-to-show-hot-coffee-susan-saladoffs-first-film.html |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=The New York Times |date=June 24, 2011}}</ref> A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Debruge |first1=Peter |title=Hot Coffee |url=https://variety.com/2011/film/markets-festivals/hot-coffee-1117944449/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |date=January 30, 2011}}</ref>

===''The New York Times'' Retro Report===
On October 21, 2013, ''The New York Times'' published a [[Retro Report]] video about the media reaction and an accompanying article about the changes in coffee drinking over 20 years.<ref name="retroreport2"/><ref>{{cite news |last=Stout |first=Hilary |date=2013-10-21 |title=Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |department=Retro Report |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=2013-10-26}}</ref> ''The New York Times'' noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide,<ref name="retroreport2"/> and that McDonald's, rather than Liebeck, was portrayed as the victim.<ref>{{cite AV media |title=Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html |type=MP4|work=The New York Times |date=2013-10-21 |time=6:45–11:35}}</ref> Within a month, the Retro Report video had more than one million views and had triggered debate in the online comments.<ref>{{cite news |last=Bertram |first=Bonnie |date=2013-10-25 |title=Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |department=Retro Report |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/booming/storm-still-brews-over-scalding-coffee.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=2013-10-26}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Compensation culture]]
* [[McDonald's legal cases]]
* "[[The Postponement]]" and "[[The Maestro (Seinfeld)|The Maestro]]" — ''Seinfeld'' episodes which include a parody of the case

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
* {{cite journal |last=Greenlee |first=Mark B. |year=1997 |title=''Kramer v. Java World'': Images, Issues, and Idols in the Debate over Tort Reform |journal=Capital University Law Review |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=701–738}}
* {{cite book |last1=Haltom |first1=William |last2=McCann |first2=Michael |year=2009 |orig-year=2004 |title=Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-31469-3}}
* {{cite book |last1=Nader |first1=Ralph |author1-link=Ralph Nader |last2=Smith |first2=Wesley J. |year=1996 |title=No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America |location=New York |publisher=Random House |isbn=978-0-679-42972-2}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite journal |last=Rutherford |first=Denney G. |title=Lessons from Liebeck: QSRs Cool the Coffee |journal=Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly |volume=39 |issue=3 |year=1998 |pages=72–75 |issn=0010-8804 |doi=10.1177/001088049803900314 |s2cid=154928258}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Enghagen |first1=Linda K. |last2=Gilardi |first2=Anthony |title=Putting things in perspective: McDonald's and the $2.9-million cup of coffee |journal=Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly |volume=43 |issue=3 |year=2002 |pages=53–60 |issn=0010-8804 |doi=10.1016/S0010-8804(02)80018-0}}

==External links==
* [http://www.abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ] at Abnormal Use
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/do_you_know_the_full_story Do you Know The Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Used it to Promote Tort Reform?] by ''[[Democracy Now!]]''
* [https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ ''Liebeck v. McDonald’s:'' The Hot Coffee Case] at the [[American Museum of Tort Law]]
* [https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts ''The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case''] at the [[Consumer Attorneys of California]]
* [https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media] by [[The New York Times]]

{{United States tort case law}}
{{McDonald's}}
{{Portal bar|Coffee|Drink|Law|New Mexico|United States|1990s}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Restaurants}}
[[Category:1994 in New Mexico]]
[[Category:1994 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Coffee preparation]]
[[Category:Food safety in the United States]]
[[Category:History of Albuquerque, New Mexico]]
[[Category:McDonald's litigation]]
[[Category:New Mexico state case law]]
[[Category:United States consumer protection case law]]
[[Category:United States tort case law]]