Liebeck vs. McDonald’s: Senior woman sued for millions for scalding herself with coffee

It almost sounds like the beginning of a Saturnine anecdote. An old woman ordered hot coffee at a fast food chain and after carelessly spilled it on her lap, she was surprised that it was hot. But the incident was far from as frivolous as it might seem at first glance: the injured woman suffered serious burns on more than twenty percent of her body, had to undergo several operations, including a skin transplant, and had a long recovery ahead of her. She later sued McDonald’s for medical expenses and psychological damage.

Stella Liebeck was born in 1912 in Norwich, East England. In 1992, she was 79 years old, had grown children and grandchildren, and lived near them in the capital city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. On February 27 of that year, she was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson Chris’ car when she got a craving for coffee. Therefore, the grandson stopped at the counter of the local McDonald’s branch, where he placed an order, paid 49 cents for a cup of espresso, handed the cup to his grandmother and drove with her to a nearby parking lot so that she could add sugar and milk to the hot drink in peace. That’s when Stella Liebeck made probably one of the biggest mistakes of her life – because the 1989 Ford Probe her grandson picked her up in on the way to a family party didn’t have a cup holder, she held the cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid towards her to remove it. At the same time, she poured the entire contents of the cup into her lap.

This is where the part of the story that might resemble an anecdote ends. While most of us would experience only short-term discomfort in a similar situation, when the ruined pants would probably bother us the most, Stella Liebeck suffered incomparably more due to the confluence of unfortunate circumstances. The coffee inside the cup was hot, and Liebeck was unfortunately wearing cotton sweatpants that absorbed the liquid and held it against her skin. Thighs, groin and buttocks were scalded. The result was third-degree burns on six percent of the skin, and second- and first-degree burns on another sixteen percent. She spent eight days in the hospital, where she underwent a skin transplant, and for the next three weeks she needed intensive round-the-clock care provided by her daughter. During the acute phase of treatment, she lost nine kilograms (thus losing almost 20% of her body weight) and spent the next two years as an invalid. Despite several plastic surgeries, her body was left with burn marks.

Stella Liebeck was convinced that this confluence of unfortunate circumstances had a specific culprit. Her injury was caused by the coffee prepared by McDonald’s employees, so she decided to approach McDonald’s with a request for compensation. She sought a total of $20,000 to cover actual and anticipated medical expenses and lost earnings for her daughter who had to care for her. McDonald’s responded in the negative: they sternly expressed their regret to the Liebeck family and offered a compensation of just $800. Liebeck refused to put up with this and hired a lawyer.

Texas-based Reed Morgan has taken over the representation of Stella Liebeck in the dispute with the fast food giant. Sharp-elbowed, Morgan was quick to accuse the chain of gross negligence in preparing and selling the coffee, which he said was “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous.” He offered McDonald’s to settle his client for $30,000, and when his representatives again refused, Morgan teamed up with other colleagues to sue the chain on Liebick’s behalf.

The ensuing lawsuit has become one of the most controversial and highly publicized civil cases in modern United States history. Some mocked the audacity of an old woman who sued a popular establishment for not holding a cup of coffee. Others, on the other hand, sympathized with her and accused McDonald’s of being callous in its communication with the victim. At McDonald’s, they were probably beating their heads for a long time that they didn’t immediately agree to the old lady’s demands.

Stella Liebick eventually won the court case with McDonald’s. The jury decided that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for the fact that she was scalded by their hot coffee on the fateful day (the other 20% was attributed to her careless handling of the cup). The amount she sued the company took the breath away of even the biggest skeptics: she was awarded a total of $2.9 million. The media quoted the result with sensational ferocity and the front pages of newspapers filled headlines such as “Coffee for three million”. The dispute went down in history as “McDonald’s coffee case” or “the hot coffee lawsuit” and is still cited as an example of a typically “American” consumer dispute, where users of goods or services successfully sue large companies for damages caused by their own stupidity. In fact, the interpretations that belittle Stella Liebick’s position and accuse her of being one of those who abuse the court system for petty tricks are the result of information noise and deception.

The arguments that were presented against McDonald’s during the dispute were more than serious. Among the most important of these was the temperature of the coffee, which was demonstrably higher than it should have been – instead of around 60°C, the drink Liebick received should have been somewhere between 82-88°C. One of the summoned doctors testified in court that third-degree burns can occur in three seconds at such a temperature, and McDonald’s representatives themselves admitted that coffee prepared in this way can be life-threatening.

“Customers want it this way,” they claimed, adding that it was company policy to heat the coffee to such a high temperature. But Liebick’s lawyers presented the court with a list of more than 700 cases of coffee burns from the past ten years, which McDonald’s treated with scornful supremacy. The company did not benefit from the overall arrogant attitude and excessive self-confidence – the resulting amount that the injured party had to pay reflected their initial reluctance to come to an agreement and unhelpful communication with the customer.

Stella Liebeck died on August 5, 2004 at the age of 91. According to her daughter, she did not enjoy the money she spent on McDonald’s. The burns took their toll and her quality of life was poor until the end of her days. However, her case sparked a debate about consumer protection, food safety controls, and contributed to speeding up the upcoming reform of civil torts. Although the case has been distorted by the media over the years, Liebeck remains for many people a rare example of a folk hero who succeeded in the fight against the food mogul.

At McDonald’s, they haven’t lowered the temperature of the coffee yet.

“Legal Myths: The McDonald’s ‘Hot Coffee’ Case” (11/30/1999). citizens.org (online). Read 5/3/2024

“The Truth Behind the Infamous McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit”. The Pool Law Group. Read 5/3/2024

“What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit” (December 16, 2016). Vox. Read 5/3/2024