A reader writes:
I love the post on the hot coffee. My first class in law school was torts, and the "McDonald's Coffee" case was the topic of our first discussion. Of course we all thought the case was absurd until we heard the facts. What we didn't know was that McDonald's had received numerous complaints before about the temperature of their coffee and chose to do nothing. They justified this decision by bringing in a coffee "expert" who explained to the juror that hot coffee just tastes better and that McDonald's needed to sell the coffee at this temperature to ensure quality. Finally, they brought in an expert who testified that the people who had been scalded by the coffee in the past were "statistically insignificant." Calling an elderly woman "insignificant" in light of the photographs you mentioned was terrible strategy on the defense's behalf.
Large jury verdicts like this are good for the public generally.
The settling of tort claims is usually a defense-friendly process if insurance is involved. The pressure on a plaintiff to settle cases is immense; usually they need the money to pay for medical bills or make up for lost wages and there is always the chance that they get nothing even though they may be deserving. All these pressures work to reduce settlement values, as the plaintiff will take less than they are entitled to in order to ensure they get something. "Home run" verdicts like this one serve as a counter balance to those downward pressures. No insurance company wants to get hit for a million dollar verdict when they only needed to up their offer of $100,000 by $50,000 to settle a claim. (Oh, and don't worry about insurance premiums; they never go down when the defendants start winning more cases, the insurer's profit margins do.)
Another writes:
I am SO glad to see someone highlighting this case. I have spent years correcting smart-asses who make jokes about it. “Some dumb old lady sued because of hot coffee” has been the meme. This case is a poster child against tort reform.
Years ago I came across an online newsgroup that one of her children and a lawyer involved in the case participated in. The whole thing was appalling and VERY different from what the average person on the street believes about the case. Mrs. Liebeck NEVER intended to sue. During her long, slow, painful recovery she and her family did learn, anecdotally, that McDonald’s coffee was many tens of degrees hotter than any other coffee you served virtually anywhere else, including other restaurant chains. They serve 185 – 190-degree coffee. Your home coffee machine produces 135-degree coffee. Jack-in-the-box, Burger King: 130-140 degrees. They also learned that there had been some utterly grotesque previous accidents requiring emergency treatment. In one unbearably sad case, a teenager passing coffee spilled the cup on her infant sibling, burning the baby over a large part of his body, castrating him.
Still, no intent to sue.
Only years later, after she was able to sit up and collect her thoughts did Mrs. Liebeck write to McDonald's, asking if they would like to contribute to her very significant out-of-pocket expenses. She never expected a response. Or, if they sent a check for a few hundred dollars, so much the better. Either way, that would be the end of it What DID happen, is that they sent a very terse letter offering a few hundred dollars, demanded that she sign a waiver, and basically called her a gold-digger. At some point, her son took the letter to the family lawyer, and then it all went from there.
The McDonald's executives were completely un-briefed and unprepared, and came in the courtroom rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at the jury as though the whole thing was a stupid joke they were all in on, with all this trouble being caused by a stupid old lady. They were a complete fiasco. They related forcefully that they had no intentions of adjusting their practices, even though there have been many complaints, from employees, from customers, from burn hospitals. (They still serve 185-degree coffee nationwide. Employees say it is to prevent people from drinking too fast and asking for refills.)
Very fortunately for McDonalds, Republican-led tort reform limited the amount the judge could allow the jury to award. After dragging the case out in the courts for years, there was a very small out-of-court settlement, basically nothing. It was for a few tens-of-thousands of dollars that covered no ones' expenses, much less legal fees. The family was now broke, and Mrs. Liebeck died around that time.
A Google search for the baby castration story turns up empty, but a similar story was published just three years ago:
A baby left scarred for life after being drenched in scalding hot McDonald's tea is fighting back after undergoing skin grafts. Shakila Khalaghe was burned on her face, chest and legs – but the burger giant has offered just £75 in vouchers as compensation.
The Dish 