Question

Eighty-one-year-old Stella Liebeck was a passenger in a parked car, when she accidentally spilled scalding-hot McDonald's coffee on herself. (McDonald's allegedly kept its coffee at 180 degrees, 40 degrees hotter than most people serve coffee, to maintain peak flavor). The spill caused second and third degree burns that required skin graphs and left scars.

When McDonald's offered Liebeck $800 of the $2000 medical expenses she had asked for, Liebeck sued. After hearing that there had been 700 complaints about scalding coffee, the jury found for Stella and awarded her $160,000 compensatory damages and another $2.7 million in punitive. The latter were reduced on appeal to $480,000.
The question is: How might you use the above scenario to argue for/against tort reform and what do you think should happen if the case were appealed?

Answer 1

In the given case, McDonald’s was serving coffee at 40 degrees higher temperature than the normal serving. This was basically done to maintain the taste and peak flavor of coffee. However, a temperature as high as 180 degrees can lead to serious third-degree burns. The tort reform is totally justified. The judge, to decide this case, went over the facts of the company. McDonald’s earning from just coffee was around $1.33 million/ day at that time. So, the judge felt that it was appropriate to give 2 days earning as a punitive damage to the plaintiff. The company was risking the lives of its customers, just to maintain the appeal of its product. This is totally unethical and immoral. The judgment is totally justified.