First, no, I haven't seen the documentary.
Re: the trial [from
Wikipedia]:
Quote:
Trial and verdict
The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. 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. McDonalds research showed customers intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company 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. 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 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% 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 US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
Emphasis mine.
My point isn't that she didn't have a case, but rather, that I don't think McDonald's should have been held responsible for it. If you want to use comparative negligence, I suppose I'd say the verdict should be switched...McDonald's being only 20% at fault, Liebeck herself 80%.
Some items of my opinion to note:
1. Liebeck's burns being severe is no reason to award her money (i.e. I'm saying that if McDonald's wanted to pay her something, great, but sympathy shouldn't be a reason to award her the money). I bring this up because whenever I see the suit raised, emphasis is always placed on "But did you see
how badly she was burned?" And if she'd been boiling water at home, and spilled the kettle on herself, who then is at fault? Not the water treatment plant, not the stove or kettle manufacturer, but her. And not because the water can be superheated, but because
she spilled it on herself.
2. Coffee is very hot. It
burns. That's how it's supposed to be, and the idea that
coffee is served very hot constitutes, to me, a reasonable expectation of exceptional care in handling it.
3. To me, the idea of
coffee = hot is a given, and the
value of hot is a non-issue. The accident is not "she spilled extremely hot coffee on herself," but rather, "she spilled coffee on herself." It's a given (again, to me, and I'm well aware that not everyone agrees) that coffee is hot, which is why you (general public you) avoid spilling it on yourself. Thus, it is the act of spilling that is the issue. Had the McDonald's employee tripped or otherwise accidentally (or intentionally) spilled the coffee on Liebeck, then most certainly I'd find McDonald's at fault. But find them at fault for serving a requested hot beverage
hot? I can't get behind that.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
). I also don't believe that Liebeck spilled the coffee intentionally, nor did she exaggerate the extent of her wounds. I also believe that McDonald's would have been lauded for paying, unbidden, her medical expenses and lost wages; however, doing so would have opened the company up to untold amounts of trouble, so I easily can see why they did not.