hot coffee mcdonalds case study

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

• Find a Lawyer
• You've been hurt. Now what?
• Do I have a claim?
• Finding the best attorney to represent you
• Dealing with Insurance
• Laws by State
• Car accident
• Truck Accident
• Workplace injury
• Wrongful death
• Common work injuries
• Finding the best workers’ comp lawyers
• How workers’ comp benefits work
• Personal injury vs. workers’ compensation
• Spinal Cord/Column
• Brain Injury
• Occupational injuries
• Questions & Answers
• Tell Your Story
• Forms and Worksheets
• For Students
• Become a Partner
• Join lawyer directory
• Compare plans and features
• Guest blogging for attorneys
• Enjuris Excellence badge

The Real Story Behind McDonald’s Infamous Hot Coffee Case

About enjuris attorney editor.

Contributor: Enjuris Attorney Editor

How can I contribute?

The case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants— more commonly known as the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit—is often cited as a classic example of frivolous litigation in the United States. In much of the public’s eye, Stella Lieback was a greedy plaintiff who spilled warm coffee on her lap while driving and decided to cash in by suing a big corporation for millions of dollars.

As country singer Toby Keith put it in his song “American Drive”: Spill a cup of coffee, make a million dollars.

The real case, however, isn’t nearly that simple.

Let’s take a look at the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood personal injury lawsuit.

The background of the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. While sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s parked car, she attempted to remove the lid in order to add cream while holding the coffee cup between her knees.

The cup tipped over and the scalding hot coffee poured onto her lap.

How hot was the coffee?

At the time of the incident, all McDonald’s restaurants were required to serve coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. At this temperature, spilled coffee causes third-degree burns in less than 3 seconds.

“Our position was that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the temperature should have been lower,” Stella’s attorney Kenneth Wagner said.

Most other restaurants serve coffee at 160 degrees, which takes 20 seconds to cause third-degree burns (usually enough time to wipe away the coffee). Home coffee makers typically brew coffee at about 135-150 degrees.

How badly was she burned?

Stella suffered third-degree burns (the most serious and painful kind) on more than 16% of her body, including her inner thighs, genitals, and buttocks where the skin was burned down to the layers of muscle and fatty tissue.

As a result of her burns, Stella had to be hospitalized for 8 days and she required skin grafts and other extensive treatment. Her recovery lasted 2 years.

What’s more, Stella was not alone. At least 700 other people informed McDonald’s that they had been burned by McDonald’s coffee before Stella, yet the company refused to change its policy of keeping coffee 30 degrees hotter than other restaurants and coffee shops.

Why didn’t Stella try to settle the case before filing a lawsuit?

One of the common misconceptions about the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit is that Stella was eager to sue McDonald’s for millions of dollars. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

Stella spent 6 months trying to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 and then $15,000 to help cover her medical expenses, but McDonald’s refused. Instead, McDonald’s offered Stella $800. McDonald’s also refused Stella’s request to lower the temperature of their coffee in order to prevent future injuries to other customers.

Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants lawsuit

Unable to settle, Stella filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging that McDonald’s was “grossly negligent” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous.”

Even after filing the lawsuit, Stella’s attorney attempted to settle the case for $90,000, but McDonald’s refused once again.

The trial began on August 8th before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.

Evidence presented at trial showed that McDonald’s required franchisees to keep coffee heated between 180-190 degrees and that the restaurant received more than 700 complaints from customers who were burned as a result of the coffee.

At the end of the trial, the jury awarded Stella $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20% at fault) and $2.7 million in punitive damages (reduced to $480,000 by the judge).

Both parties appealed and the lawsuit was ultimately settled for less than $600,000.

The aftermath of the McDonald’s hot coffee case

After the trial, a small article appeared in the Albuquerque Journal . From there, the story spread like wildfire—becoming less and less accurate as it spread. Even reputable sources like NBC News published articles describing the lawsuit as “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.”

Stella died on August 5, 2004, at the age of 91. Her daughter explained that “the burns and court proceedings took their toll” on her and that Stella had “no quality of life” after the trial, although the settlement at least helped pay for a live-in nurse.

Since the verdict was handed down in 1994, a number of lawsuits have been filed against coffee vendors, including Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, and Burger King, as a result of coffee-related burns. In most cases, the coffee temperature was not as hot as the coffee in Stella’s case and the plaintiffs were not successful.

Do you remember the McDonald’s hot coffee case? How has your perception of the case changed over the years or after reading this article?

Disney Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged "Injurious Wedgie" Incident at Water Park

A woman injured at Typhoon Lagoon water park in Florida filed suit against Walt Disney Resort after experiencing an injurious wedgie.

Reader Interactions

ThePistolHut says

August 26, 2021 at 4:50 am

Your article left out the vicious, potent and expensive PR campaign McD’s implemented to defame and slander Ms. Liebeck in the eyes of the public. Based on various internet comments, that campaign was successful. To this day, much misinformation and hatred circulates about Stella.

Ian Pisarcik says

August 26, 2021 at 6:28 pm

Thanks for the comment.

John Jacobs says

October 9, 2021 at 5:53 pm

Unfortunately, many big business leaders do not evaluate the pros and cons of law suits. In this case the lawyers were trying to show their worth to the company and the leadership stubbornly couldn’t admit one of it’s policies might need to be reviewed and revised.

What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit

Adam Ruins Everything explains that the case wasn’t about greed, but about a working-class woman forcing a big company to make its product safer.

by German Lopez

It’s treated as a classic example of judicial overreach and greed: A woman, driving in her car while holding McDonald’s coffee between her legs, spills some of the coffee on herself. Inflicted with some minor burns, she sues McDonald’s, as if she shouldn’t have known that coffee is hot and driving with it in your hand or legs is dangerous. And then she ultimately wins millions of dollars from the fast food chain — becoming rich due to a dumb mistake that was all on her.

Only this is all wrong.

In a new segment of Adam Ruins Everything , host Adam Conover explains that basically everything people think they know about the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit is false. He walks through some of the actual details of the case:

• Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose grandson drove her to McDonald’s in 1992. She was in a parked car when the coffee spilled.
• Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals, nearly killing her and requiring extensive surgery to treat.
• McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe. In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.)
• Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.
• After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee.

As Conover put it, “This was an incredibly rare case where a working-class victim actually beat a huge team of corporate lawyers and made the world a better place.”

So how did the public’s view of this case get so warped? According to Conover, lawyers spent years running a disinformation campaign, which much of the media bought into, holding up the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit as an example of a supposed epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.

“The last several decades, large corporations afraid of being sued for making unsafe products created front groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse to turn public opinion against lawsuits,” University of Washington professor Michael McCann told Conover. But “the best social science evidence shows that the number of personal injury lawsuits in recent decades has declined, and the median payout is only $55,000.”

The lesson here: There are many problems with our justice system, from vast racial disparities to a bail system that excessively punishes the poor . But the McDonald’s hot coffee case isn’t one of those problems.

Watch: Why you should drink coffee before you take a nap

Most popular, your favorite brand no longer cares about being woke, what’s really happening to grocery prices right now, the obscure federal intelligence bureau that got vietnam, iraq, and ukraine right, alito says the supreme court’s fake ethics code allows him to be unethical, why the uncanny “all eyes on rafah” image went so viral, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Politics

Why Israel can't destroy Hamas

The slaughter in Rafah and Israel’s moral nadir

The enormous stakes of India’s election

One explanation for the 2024 election’s biggest mystery

The NRA just won a big Supreme Court victory. Good.

Congress’s online child safety bill, explained

How to care for people in your life with intellectual disabilities

The bizarre link between rising sea levels and complications in pregnancy

Expecting worse: Giving birth on a planet in crisis 

Heat waves increase the number of risky, premature births

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Pop Culture Happy Hour

• Performing Arts
• Pop Culture

A New Documentary Looks Back At A Famous Cup Of McDonald's 'Hot Coffee'

Linda Holmes

The new documentary Hot Coffee presents filmmaker Susan Saladoff's impassioned arguments on four aspects of the civil justice system. HBO hide caption

The new documentary Hot Coffee presents filmmaker Susan Saladoff's impassioned arguments on four aspects of the civil justice system.

Question: What do you think is the most famous lawsuit of the last 50 years that didn't involve an already-famous person?

My guess is that it might be the case of Stella Liebeck. If Stella's name doesn't ring a bell, maybe "McDonald's coffee" does.

The Liebeck case became a legend largely because the narrative that became popular had three basic elements that people quite reasonably found galling in combination: (1) A trivial injury (spilling coffee on yourself); (2) resulting from a ridiculously foolish act (driving with a cup of coffee between your legs), for which (3) someone set out to get rich (the jury awarded Stella $2.9 million).

Airing tonight at 9:00 p.m. on HBO, the new documentary Hot Coffee argues, among other things, that all three of those elements of the popular narrative were fundamentally false. It shows gasp-inducing photographs of Liebeck's third-degree burns, which required hospitalization and multiple skin grafts; it clarifies that she (in the passenger seat) and her grandson (in the driver's seat) were parked in the McDonald's parking lot, and were not driving, when the coffee spilled; and it extensively quotes Liebeck's attorney and family on the fact that her initial request to McDonald's was merely to have them pay the part of her out-of-pocket medical expenses that weren't covered by Medicare.

(As a side note, it's also interesting to hear Liebeck's daughter say that when it first happened, the family assumed that in order for the spill to inflict the injuries it did, the pot must have malfunctioned or been cranked up higher than it was supposed to be, so they didn't anticipate that having the company cover her medical expenses would be particularly controversial. They sort of assumed that third-degree burns would be evidence that something wasn't done the way it was meant to be done, which didn't turn out to be so.)

There are other aspects of the Liebeck case that are explored in the film — which played at last week's Silverdocs festival in Silver Spring, Md. — including the fact that the judge reduced the award and the problems the jury had with some of the testimony McDonald's provided. But the aim of filmmaker Susan Saladoff is, at least in part, to offer a counterargument to a narrative she believes has fundamentally changed the way people perceive the civil justice system, in spite of the fact that it isn't what actually happened.

Understand: Saladoff is an advocate, and she was, when she presented the film at Silverdocs, clear and unapologetic about the fact that Hot Coffee is an opinionated argument, not a dispassionate recitation of facts. She's trained as a litigator herself, and she's angry about the four topics she tackles here: false (or partly false, or exaggerated) narratives about particular lawsuits, legislative caps on the damages an injured person can collect notwithstanding the extent of the injury, the influencing of judicial elections in order to have those legislative caps upheld in court, and the use of mandatory arbitration in consumer and employment contracts.

She's also a brand-new filmmaker, and that shows in the simplicity of the presentation. This isn't a documentary that's made with any particular effort at cinematic style — and the good news about that is that HBO is as good a place to see it as any. (Even before I learned that Hot Coffee would be airing on TV, I would have told you it looked like TV.)

There are a lot of pieces to the Liebeck case alone, and the misunderstandings of the facts are not all there is to it. Not everyone who fully understands the facts of the case agrees that she should have recovered anything — some judges have thrown out similar cases, and some juries haven't awarded damages in similar cases. But it is true that seeing the film makes the case look different than it does if you are under the impression she was flying down the highway with a teetering cup of coffee in her lap.

Showing the pictures of Liebeck's burns doesn't suddenly resolve all debate over the case. But if people are going to have strong opinions about whether she should have collected anything and what that means about how courts work (which many people do), at least Hot Coffee gives them an opportunity to base those opinions on the original story, rather than on jokes from Seinfeld , which can happen when a case becomes such a fable that the perception of it is based on the equivalent of tenth-generation photocopies of what actually happened.

Saladoff told the Silverdocs audience of Hot Coffee , "It's my truth." Indeed, there are other people who undoubtedly would (and do) make other arguments from the same sets of facts. But when the maker of a documentary is straightforward about the fact that she's staking out a position, it's kind of refreshing: When you know that, you don't walk out of the theater thinking you've supposedly been presented with every argument. This is just her argument, and she offers her evidence to support it. What you do with it, and the degree to which you are persuaded, is up to you.

• Make A Payment

The Verdict: How the Hot Coffee Lawsuit Led to Tort Reform

• September 10, 2020
• The Carlson Law Firm
• Personal Injury , Press Room , Safety , The Verdict Podcast

In This Article...

It’s Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. 

Despite living in the internet age with unlimited access to information and a documentary available for free, 25 years later, the case that was settled on August 18, 1994, remains the subject of speculation and misdirected outrage. The ability of a billion-dollar corporation to control public perception of the case, along with conservative lawmakers accepting billions of dollars from those corporations prompted sweeping changes in American tort law.  

McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit: The Facts

Once corporations gained control of the story, Stella Liebeck became a newly-minted millionaire grandmother, who got an easy payday. In reality, Stella Liebeck wasn’t looking for a major payday; she was looking for a fair settlement. She wasn’t a litigious woman who only filed the lawsuit against McDonald’s after the company disregarded the severity of her injuries. 

The truth was that she was an elderly woman who endured extremely serious burn injuries to her pelvic region. Her injuries required surgery and skin grafts that cost her around $10,500 in 1994 (about $18,105.63 if adjusted for inflation in 2019). 

Mrs. Liebeck never saw millions, but settled with McDonald’s for an undisclosed amount. According to her children, the undisclosed amount received by their mother went toward caring for her in her final years.

Who was Stella Liebeck?

Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico. On Feb. 27, 1992, her grandson drove her to the local McDonald’s where she ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window. Her grandson parked the car to allow Mrs. Liebeck to add cream and sugar to her coffee. The 1989 Ford Probe  Mrs. Liebeck and her grandson were in did not have cup holders. So Mrs. Liebeck, reasonably, placed the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add her cream and sugar. As she did so, the entire cup of coffee spilled on her lap. The cotton pants she was wearing absorbed the hot liquid and held it against her skin. The 180-190° coffee scalded her thighs, buttocks, and groin. She suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region and required skin grafts. 

Initially, Mrs. Liebeck had no intention to sue. She just wanted McDonald’s to cover her medical bills. Her injuries were so severe that her medical bills amounted to about $10,500 and future medical bills were estimated at approximately $2,500. Mrs. Liebeck’s daughter also sought recovery for her lost income from driving her mother to different hospital visits of income. In total, Mrs. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. 

McDonald’s offered $800. 

Enter attorney Reed Morgan 

The now infamous Hot Coffee Lawsuit began when Mrs. Liebeck sought the help of a personal injury attorney in a law office in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The firm she walked into just so happened to the be law office of an acquaintance familiar with Reed Morgan ’s work on the previous hot liquid spill case. 

At the time, Morgan was a plaintiff’s attorney running his law firm in Houston, Texas. Morgan’s practice emphasized assisting seaman injured as a result of working on vessels. However, he did work in other areas of personal injury law. Because he had settled a case similar to Liebeck’s, Morgan was aware of the long history of McDonald’s hot coffee spills and the related injuries. 

“I thought at the time that whenever you can see a scenario like this where somebody is using a consumer product, and they’re doing something reasonable, it’s foreseeable that they’re going to spill a liquid—whether it’s a cold liquid or a hot liquid,” Morgan said. “I figured that when you wind up with deep third-degree burns and skin grafts, there’s got to be a better way for society to be functioning than buying drinks that are that scalding hot.”

Investigation

He began his research by asking why Liebeck had gotten such deep burns. Through speaking with Dr. Ken Diller at the University of Texas at Austin, he discovered the science of which he based the case against McDonald’s. 

“There was a lot of literature on [skin burns] dating all the way back to World War II,” Morgan said. “So, I learned that it was scientifically proven that there is a time-temperature ratio… the tables will tell you at what temperature how fast the average skin will burn.” 

Once he saw the temperature the coffee was kept in the decanter at McDonald’s, he understood why Mrs. Liebeck had gotten such deep burns. 

What was the science Morgan presented to the jury?

While preparing the hot coffee lawsuit Morgan spoke with expert Dr. Diller. Morgan learned that liquid with a temperature of 180-190° could lead to third-degree burns in as little as two to seven seconds , and especially so if clothing absorbs the liquid. This is the temperature that McDonald’s admitted to keeping their coffee, based on a consultant’s recommendation for optimal taste.

Morgan’s expert on thermodynamics testified that if the coffee had been served at 155°, it would’ve cooled enough to avoid injury.

According to Morgan, consumer studies put the ideal temperature for consumption of coffee between 145-155°. 

“At that temperature, if you were to spill a hot liquid on your bare skin while wearing shorts, you would get a second-degree burn,” Morgan said. 

McDonald’s initially claimed that its customers intended to consume the coffee after they made it to their intended destination. However, the company’s own internal research showed that most of its customers drink coffee while still in their car. 

McDonald’s Hot Coffee and the discovery of the 700 Complaints

During discovery, Morgan and his team found that between 1982 and 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports from consumers burned by their coffee. Reports varied in burn severity, but the company spent about $500,000 settling burn injury claims in those ten years. 

This historical data strengthened Liebeck’s case because 700 complaints show that McDonald’s knew about the dangers of its coffee. Still, the business failed to address the dangerous temperature levels of its coffee. 

What’s so controversial about the Liebeck punitive damages?

After a weeklong trial, the 12-person jury used comparative negligence to find that McDonald’s was 80% at-fault for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. They awarded Mrs. Liebeck $200,000 but found her 20% at fault for her injuries thus reducing her award to $160,000. The jury then awarded Mrs. Liebeck another $2.7 million in punitive damages—or the total revenue McDonald’s makes from coffee sales in just two days. Punitive damages are a penalty to ensure that companies change their behavior. In essence, the jury said that Mrs. Liebeck did carry some blame for her injuries because she held the coffee improperly. At the end of the day, if McDonald’s served its coffee at a reasonable temperature, it would have been unlikely that Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries would’ve been so severe.

The parties eventually settled out of court, but the final figure of how much Mrs. Liebeck received is not public knowledge.

Still, it is the $2.7-million verdict that stands out in people’s minds when they think about the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Lawsuit. 

Lawsuits are frivolous until it’s your own

In the mid-1990s, Stella Liebeck’s injuries were largely ignored. The media and lawmakers dismissed the facts of the case in favor of pointing to what they viewed as an outrageous jury award. There are three primary reasons the public remains so misinformed about the Liebeck case include the following: 

• The focus on the jury-awarded punitive damages.
• A concerted political campaign to skew public opinion in favor of tort reform.
• A failure to report the injuries distorted the case in the mind of the public. 

These three elements kickstarted the move toward tort reform through capping damages and continues to aid in the erosion of the 7th Amendment .

What people miss about personal injury lawsuits is that they exist to improve consumer safety. In fact, numerous reports say that the McDonald’s in Albuquerque when Liebeck was burned, now sells its coffee at 158 °. At this temperature, a person who spills the liquid on themselves would suffer third-degree burns in about 60 seconds. This means that the margin of safety has increased as a direct consequence of this case. 

A lesson for attorneys

More than tort reform, there is another reason that attorneys can learn from Liebeck v. McDonald’s. It’s a lesson in media training. 

Morgan says that the one thing he would have done differently in the Hot Coffee Lawsuit is speaking to the media. 

“If I had to redo it, I would have been more accepting of anybody that wanted to do a television interview, so I could get the truth about the science behind it out and what really happened,” Morgan said.

Morgan continues to practice law and is Of Counsel to The Carlson Law Firm . Since the Liebeck case, Morgan’s work has primarily emphasized assisting those who work in the maritime field dealing with life or death illnesses. 

Do you want to hear more from attorney Reed Morgan on the Stella Liebeck case? Check out a bonus episode of The Verdict , our podcast where personal injury meets storytelling.

Share This Page

Related posts.

For many families, promoting the mental health of our children and adolescents is a priority.…

 If you were to ask a group of girls about their morning routine, some might…

  KILLEEN, TX — The threat of rain didn’t stop the community from showing up…

• Practice Areas
• Testimonials
• Community Involvement
• Make a Payment

Decades after the infamous 'hot coffee' case, McDonald's is being sued over another scalding spill

Customer claims drive-thru worker in burnaby, b.c., didn't attach lid properly before passing her the cup.

Social Sharing

In the early 1990s, Stella Liebeck ordered a fresh cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque, N.M. Her grandson, who was driving, pulled into the parking lot so Liebeck could add her cream and sugar.

In the absence of a cupholder, Liebeck steadied the cup between her knees.

She spilled the coffee, suffered third-degree burns,  sued the franchise and was later awarded nearly $2.9 million US in damages — roughly $5 million in present day money.

The case became a nationwide lightning rod for the debate around frivolous litigation.

But nearly three decades after Liebeck settled her case, lawsuits over McDonald's hot coffee are still reaching the courts.

• Woman scalded by tea wants regulation of hot drinks

A mental health support worker has filed a claim against one of the chain's locations in Burnaby, B.C., after being burned by hot coffee last year.

The lawsuit filed Tuesday said Lok Fung ordered her drink from the drive-thru on Still Creek Drive on Jan. 20, 2021. The claim alleged the worker passed the cup through the window without putting the lid on properly and let go before Fung could grab it.

"The cup of scalding hot coffee then spilled on [Fung]," the lawsuit read.

Fung said her left wrist and left thigh were burned.

McDonald's is being accused of negligence. The lawsuit claimed the restaurant served coffee at too high a temperature and didn't warn Fung it would be "extremely hot."

It also said the chain didn't train its employees well enough.

McDonald's has not filed a response to the claim in court. CBC News has contacted the franchise for comment.

Hot beverages subject of lawsuits for years

In Liebeck's case, some argued she was responsible because she shouldn't have been balancing the coffee in the first place. Others saw the lawsuit as a well justified David and Goliath battle against one of the world's most recognizable fast-food chains.

Courts found McDonald's carried the majority of liability for serving coffee that was too hot. A judge later reduced Liebeck's award to $640,000 US.

Liebeck required extensive skin grafts and surgery to treat burns covering 16 per cent of her body. She died a decade after settling her case.

• Go Public McDonald's franchisee sues fast food giant over temporary foreign worker controversy

Other lawsuits centred on hot drinks have cropped up over the years. A woman in Surrey, B.C., sued McDonald's after a drive-thru spill in 2011 . Another woman lost a lawsuit against Starbucks over a cup of hot tea in Sechelt, B.C., in 2017.

A woman from Winnipeg who suffered second- and third-degree burns after an extra-large cup of Tim Hortons green tea spilled on her lap in 2013 called for national regulations governing the temperatures of hot beverages at restaurants .

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Senior Writer

Rhianna Schmunk is a senior writer for CBC News based in Vancouver. Over a decade in journalism, she has reported on subjects including criminal justice, civil litigation and climate change. You can send story tips to [email protected].

• Send confidential story tips with SecureDrop
• Follow Rhianna on X

Related Stories

• Top stories from British Columbia
• Public inquest to be held into death of Myles Gray in run-in with Vancouver police
• Vancouver police confirm thin blue line patch isn't allowed on officers' uniforms
• Man arrested after police uncover 'very sophisticated' ID forgery lab in Richmond, B.C.

Public Citizen

JOIN THE MOVEMENT Get Updates Valid email is required

medium"> Donate

• Giving Through Your Will
• Gift of Stocks or Mutual Funds
• Tax-Deductible Giving
• Charitable Gift Annuities
• Gifts From Your Retirement Account
• Life Insurance Donations

What are you looking for? Search

Legal Myths: The McDonald’s “Hot Coffee” Case

In 1992 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive-through McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

This infamous case [1] has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and, in an instant, the media and legal communities were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as “Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million,” [2] or “Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million” [3] painted the picture of a “runaway jury,” an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers’ legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a “legal myth,” a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers.

A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds’ actions, the awards were justified:

• By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald’s argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. However, a doctor testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees. [4]
• During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks. [5] In addition, many of these claims were settled, amounting to more than $500,000. [6]
• Witnesses for McDonald’s testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company’s required temperature. McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not. [7]
• As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. [8] Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald’s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. [9] McDonald’s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.
• McDonald’s had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle for $300,000. [10] In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald’s settle for $225,000. [11]   McDonald’s refused all attempts to settle the case.

The Findings

The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee. [12]

Based on its finding that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald’s made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily. [13]

Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person. [14] Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy corporations, means the signal they are designed to send will not be heard. The trial court refused to grant McDonald’s a retrial, finding that its behavior was “callous.” The judge, however, announced in open court a few days after the trial that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000. [15] Both sides appealed the decision.

Before the appeals could be heard the parties reached an out-of-court agreement for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of this settlement, McDonald’s demanded that no one could release the details of the case. [16]

Based on the facts, Corporate America’s and much of the media’s trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a “legal horror story” when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing.

Note: The nature of the private settlement and lack of public court documents resulted in the use of primarily newspaper sources.

November 30, 1999

[1] .     Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants , No. CV-93-02419, 1995 (N.M. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994).

[2] . “ Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million; Damages awarded to woman scalded at McDonald’s.” The Orange County Register, Aug. 19, 1994, at C1.

[3] .    “Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19, 1994, at B3.

[4] .    Gerlin, Andrea, “A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided McDonald’s Should Pay a Woman Millions for a Hot-Coffee Spill,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 1, 1994, at A1.

[5] .     Morgan, S. Reed, “Verdict Against McDonald’s is Fully Justified,” The National Law Journal, Vol. 17 No. 8;  Oct. 24, 1996 , at A2 0.

[6] .    Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4.

[7] .    Morgan, S. Reed, “McDonald’s Burned Itself,” The Legal Times, Sept. 19, 1994, pg. 26.

[8] .    Morgan, supra note 5, at A20.

[9] .    Sherowski, Elizabeth, “Hot Coffee, Cold Cash: Making the Most of Alternative Dispute Resolution in High Stakes Personal Injury Lawsuits,” 11 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 521, 1996.

[10] “McDonald’s Settles Lawsuit of Woman Burned by Coffee,” Liability Week, Vol. 9 No. 47;  Dec. 5, 1994 .    

[11] . Gerlin, supra note 4, at A4.

[12]     Morgan,  supra note 5, at A20.

[13] . Morgan, supra note 7, pg. 26.

[14] . § 908 (a); § 908 (e) Punitive Damages, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts , American Law Institute (1979)

[15] . Morgan, supra note 5, pg. 26.

[16] . Howard, Theresa, “McDonald’s Settles Coffee Suit in Out-of-Court Agreement,” Nation’s Restaurant News, Dec. 12, 1994, pg. 1.

You might be interested in

Regaining the right to reject: forced arbitration clauses in credit card contracts.

May 15, 2023

Medical Malpractice

May 7, 2019

Forced Arbitration Rogues Gallery: References

Lost safeguards: popular public protections repealed in the trump era.

May 21, 2019

Stay Updated on Public Citizen

Follow public citizen, support our work.

• The Center for Racial Equity

The Hot Coffee Case Revisited: Has Proximate Cause Changed in the 25 Years Since Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants?

In 1994,  Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants  sparked a nationwide tort reform debate after a jury found McDonald’s liable for a consumer’s injuries after she spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself. At the time, many commentators predicted a wave of frivolous lawsuits and large judgments against businesses. But 25 years later, those predictions have not materialized. While consumers continue to sue, the doctrine of proximate cause limits the liability that businesses face from claims for injuries related to hot drinks.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants

In 1992, Stella Liebeck bought a cup of hot coffee from a McDonald’s drive-through in New Mexico. While parked, she placed the cup of coffee between her legs and attempted to peel the cap off. The coffee spilled and Ms. Liebeck sustained second- and third-degree burns.

Liebeck sued McDonald’s, alleging that the hot coffee was defectively manufactured, that it violated the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and that the defect caused her injuries. At trial, Liebeck’s attorneys offered evidence that McDonald’s asked franchisees to brew coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the attorneys offered evidence that McDonald’s had received more than 700 reports of burns resulting from coffee spills out of billions of hot coffees sold during the time period.

The jury ruled in favor of Liebeck and awarded her compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $2.7 million. But the jury determined that Liebeck was 20 percent at fault for her own injuries, and the court reduced the punitive award significantly, resulting in compensatory damages of $160,000 and punitive damages of $480,000.

Shih v. Starbucks

Shih v. Starbucks  presents a similar set of facts, but with a different outcome. In June 2016, Tina Shih went to Starbucks with a friend, and each ordered a hot tea. Each tea was given to Shih in a double-cup – one full cup placed within an empty cup. Neither cup had a sleeve. Shih carried both teas to her table and sat down.

Shih claimed that because the cup of tea was filled to the top and was very hot, she did not want to lift it. Instead, she pulled the lid off the cup and moved her chair back to sip from the cup while it was on the table. Shih pushed her chair back to lean over the cup, lost her balance, and put her hand on the table to steady herself – causing the hot tea to spill in her lap. Shih sustained second-degree burns from the incident.

Shih sued Starbucks. She alleged that the double-cup without a sleeve was a manufacturing defect, which – combined with the cup being filled to the brim with hot tea – caused her injuries. Starbucks moved for summary judgment on Shih’s claims, arguing that Shih could not prove the alleged manufacturing defect proximately caused her injuries. The court agreed, granted Starbucks’s motion, and entered judgment in favor of Starbucks. In 2020, the appeals court affirmed.

Proximate Cause is Key the Difference

The differences between  Liebeck  and  Shih  are the litigants’ defect claims and their respective theories of proximate causation. The proximate cause inquiry examines the relationship between the defendant’s alleged conduct and the plaintiff’s injury: if the defendant’s conduct is too attenuated from the consumer’s injuries, the defendant cannot be held liable for those injuries. Proximate cause exists when the defect in question increased the risk of harm to the consumer, and the consumer sustained injuries resulting from the increased risk. Courts generally test proximate cause by looking at whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the defect – meaning the business could reasonably have predicted the harm.

Liebeck’s attorneys successfully argued that the  coffee  was defective because it was served too hot and that the excessively hot temperature put Liebeck at an increased risk of burns. Liebeck established proximate cause by showing that her burn injuries were a foreseeable result of the alleged defect – the coffee being served very hot.

Shih could not establish proximate cause because the court held that the alleged defect was too attenuated from her injuries. Shih’s attorneys argued that the  lack of a cup sleeve  and the  fact that the hot tea was full  made it defective. Specifically, Shih would not have removed the tea lid, leaned forward, moved her chair, lost her balance and grabbed the table – causing it to wobble and spill the tea on her – if Starbucks had given her a cup sleeve or not filled the cup to the brim.

The court held that the alleged defect did not increase the risk of Shih being burned or otherwise injured by the hot tea; therefore, the defect was not the proximate cause of her injuries. The lack of a sleeve and the fullness of the tea did not increase Shih’s risk of losing her balance “while attempting to execute [this] kind of unorthodox drinking maneuver,” and spilling the tea on herself. The court’s use of “unorthodox” illustrates that, in the court’s view, Shih’s injuries were not a foreseeable result of the alleged defect. The court noted that while it is foreseeable that consumers could lose their balance and spill their drinks, losing one’s balance is not “within the scope of the risk” created by Starbucks’ decision to use a double cup and to fill the cup to the brim. Thus, Shih could not prove Starbucks’ actions proximately caused her injuries.

Twenty-five years after  Liebeck  sparked a national conversation about hot coffee and corporate liability,  Shih  demonstrates that courts continue to follow public policy limitations like proximate cause to protect businesses from unforeseeable consumer injuries.

• Related Industries Beverage & Food
• Related Practices Product Liability & Mass Torts Consumer Products

Continue Reading

All Perspectives from Consumer Products Watch

Linkedin Twitter Youtube

© Copyright 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Corporate & Business Organizations
• Litigation / Trial Practice
• Products Liability
• Biotech, Food, Drug
• All Federal

Two cases decided 25 years apart, but there were some facts in common: a hot drink, a consumer alleging that she was burned by the drink, and a lawsuit. These are the facts of the 1994 case  Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants  that resulted in an award of millions to the consumer, but also the facts from  Shih v. Starbucks , a case decided last year. In  Shih , however, the court found in favor of the product supplier. What’s different about these cases? The answer: how the courts interpreted proximate cause.

In 1994,  Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants  sparked a nationwide tort reform debate after a jury found McDonald’s liable for a consumer’s injuries after she spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself. At the time, many commentators predicted a wave of frivolous lawsuits and large judgments against businesses. But 25 years later, those predictions have not materialized. While consumers continue to sue, the doctrine of proximate cause limits the liability that businesses face from claims for injuries related to hot drinks.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants

In 1992, Stella Liebeck bought a cup of hot coffee from a McDonald’s drive-through in New Mexico. While parked, she placed the cup of coffee between her legs and attempted to peel the cap off. The coffee spilled and Ms. Liebeck sustained second- and third-degree burns.

Liebeck sued McDonald’s, alleging that the hot coffee was defectively manufactured, that it violated the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and that the defect caused her injuries. At trial, Liebeck’s attorneys offered evidence that McDonald’s asked franchisees to brew coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the attorneys offered evidence that McDonald’s had received more than 700 reports of burns resulting from coffee spills out of billions of hot coffees sold during the time period.

The jury ruled in favor of Liebeck and awarded her compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $2.7 million. But the jury determined that Liebeck was 20 percent at fault for her own injuries, and the court reduced the punitive award significantly, resulting in compensatory damages of $160,000 and punitive damages of $480,000.

Shih v. Starbucks

Shih v. Starbucks  presents a similar set of facts, but with a different outcome. In June 2016, Tina Shih went to Starbucks with a friend, and each ordered a hot tea. Each tea was given to Shih in a double-cup – one full cup placed within an empty cup. Neither cup had a sleeve. Shih carried both teas to her table and sat down.

Shih claimed that because the cup of tea was filled to the top and was very hot, she did not want to lift it. Instead, she pulled the lid off the cup and moved her chair back to sip from the cup while it was on the table. Shih pushed her chair back to lean over the cup, lost her balance, and put her hand on the table to steady herself – causing the hot tea to spill in her lap. Shih sustained second-degree burns from the incident.

Shih sued Starbucks. She alleged that the double-cup without a sleeve was a manufacturing defect, which – combined with the cup being filled to the brim with hot tea – caused her injuries. Starbucks moved for summary judgment on Shih’s claims, arguing that Shih could not prove the alleged manufacturing defect proximately caused her injuries. The court agreed, granted Starbucks’s motion, and entered judgment in favor of Starbucks. In 2020, the appeals court affirmed.

Proximate Cause is Key the Difference

The differences between  Liebeck  and  Shih  are the litigants’ defect claims and their respective theories of proximate causation. The proximate cause inquiry examines the relationship between the defendant’s alleged conduct and the plaintiff’s injury: if the defendant’s conduct is too attenuated from the consumer’s injuries, the defendant cannot be held liable for those injuries. Proximate cause exists when the defect in question increased the risk of harm to the consumer, and the consumer sustained injuries resulting from the increased risk. Courts generally test proximate cause by looking at whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the defect – meaning the business could reasonably have predicted the harm.

Liebeck’s attorneys successfully argued that the  coffee  was defective because it was served too hot and that the excessively hot temperature put Liebeck at an increased risk of burns. Liebeck established proximate cause by showing that her burn injuries were a foreseeable result of the alleged defect – the coffee being served very hot.

Shih could not establish proximate cause because the court held that the alleged defect was too attenuated from her injuries. Shih’s attorneys argued that the  lack of a cup sleeve  and the  fact that the hot tea was full  made it defective. Specifically, Shih would not have removed the tea lid, leaned forward, moved her chair, lost her balance and grabbed the table – causing it to wobble and spill the tea on her – if Starbucks had given her a cup sleeve or not filled the cup to the brim.

The court held that the alleged defect did not increase the risk of Shih being burned or otherwise injured by the hot tea; therefore, the defect was not the proximate cause of her injuries. The lack of a sleeve and the fullness of the tea did not increase Shih’s risk of losing her balance “while attempting to execute [this] kind of unorthodox drinking maneuver,” and spilling the tea on herself. The court’s use of “unorthodox” illustrates that, in the court’s view, Shih’s injuries were not a foreseeable result of the alleged defect. The court noted that while it is foreseeable that consumers could lose their balance and spill their drinks, losing one’s balance is not “within the scope of the risk” created by Starbucks’ decision to use a double cup and to fill the cup to the brim. Thus, Shih could not prove Starbucks’ actions proximately caused her injuries.

Twenty-five years after  Liebeck  sparked a national conversation about hot coffee and corporate liability,  Shih  demonstrates that courts continue to follow public policy limitations like proximate cause to protect businesses from unforeseeable consumer injuries.

Current Legal Analysis

More from arentfox schiff llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

McDonald’s Coffee Product Liability Case Case Study

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The general facts of the case

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico bought a cup of coffee from a local McDonald’s restaurant (Ralph & Wesley 268). Liebeck went to her car at the restaurant’s parking to prepare the coffee and drink. In the process, she had placed the cup of coffee between her knees while attempting to open the lid to allow her to pour sugar plus cream into it (Bloom, Haltom & McCann 13). The coffee spilled on her lap causing serious burns on her buttocks, thighs as well as groin (Ralph & Wesley 268). This happened on 27 th February 1992. The coffee had been heated to 190 F which was far much above the point at which other restaurants boiled their coffee (160 F) (Cain 9). When she was rushed to the hospital, it was found out that she had suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her skin as well as another 16% to a lesser degree (Ralph & Wesley 268). She suffered serious burns since she had won cotton sweatpants which had absorbed the hot coffee (Cain 4). As a result, she had to undergo skin grafting which cost her close to $20,000 in medical bills. In addition, she lost 9 kg of her body weight in eight days of hospitalization (Gerlin 4). This was followed by 2 years of medical treatment. However, when she contacted McDonald’s to help her pay part of the bill of about $20,000, McDonald’s declined (Gerlin 1). Instead, McDonald’s blamed her for her injuries arguing that she could not have placed the cup of coffee between her knees and that she could have taken off her pants on time. McDonald’s claimed that her age contributed greatly to her injuries since older people normally have thin skin.

Filing of the case

When McDonald’s refused to pay the $20,000 in medical bill and loss of income only offering to pay $800, Liebeck retained Reed Morgan, a Texas attorney (Cain 5-6). Morgan filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s at New Mexico District Court accusing the company of gross negligence in selling unreasonably dangerous as well as defectively manufactured coffee to Liebeck. Morgan claimed that the coffee served to Liebeck was excessively hot as compared to coffee served in other restaurants and that that was the major cause of Liebeck’s injuries (Gerlin 4). However, McDonald’s maintained that Liebeck was to be blamed for the injuries claiming that she could have mitigated the impacts by not placing the cup of coffee between her knees and taking off her pants as fast as possible.

The trial began on the 8 th of August 1994 and ended on the 17 th of the same month. Liebeck’s attorneys found out that it was McDonald’s policy to serve coffee to customers at high temperatures of 180-190 0 F (Cain 9). They argued that at that temperature, it was possible to suffer third-degree burns within 12-15 seconds if the coffee served at that temperature spills on the skin, and this would call for skin grafting to heal (Cain 9). McDonald on their part had argued that they served coffee at that temperature to meet the needs of customers who wanted to drive for some distance with the coffee (Cain 10).

Jury’s verdict

The verdict was made on the 18 th of the same month. The jury established that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for Liebeck’s injury while the remaining percentage was the fault of the plaintiff (Cain 14). The jury reached that though the coffee cup had a warning on it; it was not enough to prevent injuries. The jury found McDonald’s liable for the injuries as it believed that the company had acted willfully and recklessly. As a result, Liebeck was awarded compensatory damages of $160,000 after subtracting her 20% role in the incident (Cain 14). She was also awarded punitive damages of $2.7 million (Cain 14). This represented McDonald’s two days sale of coffee.

The appeal of the case

This decision was later appealed by McDonald’s. The judge at the appeal court lowered the punitive damages to $480,000, which was thrice the compensatory damages, totaling to $640,000 (Cain 14).

The standards applied in determining liability

The jury applied the principles of comparative negligence to determine the liability of the case. In comparative negligence, the jury or the judge sums up the total damages and then reduces the amount based on the extent to which the complainant contributed to the cause of the damages/injury. This is applied specifically in a negligence-based claim where the jury decides on the extent to which the complainant’s negligence versus the negligence of all other actors who contributed to the cause of the damage/injury, put together. In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, the jury determined that the total compensatory damages were $200,000; however, since the plaintiff, Liebeck, was also 20% responsible for the cause of her injury, she was only supposed to be paid 80% of the compensatory damages which was $160,000 (Gerlin 12).

The basis of the judgment

The case was based on manufacture defect since the jury established that McDonald’s had provided a warning on the cup of coffee. Liebeck’s attorneys had accused McDonald’s of selling unreasonably dangerous as well as defectively manufactured coffee. During the trial, Liebeck’s attorneys had proved to the jury that McDonald’s had heated coffee to a temperature that was above the standards of other restaurants making its customers vulnerable to third-degree burns within 12-15 seconds.

Difference between failure to warn, design defect, and manufacturing defect

In cases based on failure to warn, claims for injuries or damages are based on whether the product which caused the injury/damage had defects. The jury/judge must also determine whether the complainant’s injury was caused by the use of the product as well as whether the defendant is the manufacturer of the product. The manufacturer had known or ought to have known the risk but did not provide adequate information or warning.

In design defect, the jury/judge has to determine whether the product failed to perform as safely as per the expectation of the consumer when used as was intended. The complainant’s injury must have resulted from the use of the product that had the defect in the design by the time it left the manufacturer’s or supplier’s store.

In manufacture design, the product that caused the complainant’s injury or damage must have had a defect in its manufacture by the time it left the manufacturer’s possession. While the manufacturer could have avoided the risk, decided not to.

How the lawsuit affected the industry

This lawsuit made most coffee vendors improve their packaging in an attempt to avoid such accidents. Although McDonald’s has not lowered the temperature of its coffee, it provides sternly-worded warnings on coffee cups to avoid such liabilities (Cain 18).

Ethical view

In my opinion, McDonald’s had acted unethically by refusing to respond to Liebeck’s plea to help her pay the medical bills, and instead adopting a blame tactic to push her away. Again, McDonald’s had acted without consideration of the safety of its customers. McDonald’s was aware of the 700 cases of burns that had resulted from its highly heated products which had cost the company about $500,000 in lawsuits but still refused to change its policy. Besides, McDonald’s knew that its coffee’s high temperature could cause serious, third-degree burns but did not provide adequate warning to its customers.

Works Cited

Bloom, Anne, Haltom, William and McCann, Michael. “Law & Society Symposium: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Ico.” 56 University of Miami Law Review 113 (2001): 1-19.

Cain, Kevin. And Now, The Rest of the Story…: About the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit. The Houston Lawyer, 2007. Web.

Gerlin, Andrea. “A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million.” Wall Street Journal (1994).

Ralph, Nader and Wesley, Smith. No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America. New York: Radom House Publication Group, 1996. Print.

• The Law as the Progressive Science
• Hot Coffee Documentary
• Legal Environment: Torts and Product Liability
• Negotiable Instruments: Promissory Notes
• Weaver Mills Company Against Natural Fibre Company
• Patent law: Whopper Co. v. Bubble Company
• Corporate Fraud: Case Studies
• Anti-discrimination Legislation
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 24). McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mcdonalds-coffee-product-liability-case/

"McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case." IvyPanda , 24 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/mcdonalds-coffee-product-liability-case/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case'. 24 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case." April 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mcdonalds-coffee-product-liability-case/.

1. IvyPanda . "McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case." April 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mcdonalds-coffee-product-liability-case/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "McDonald's Coffee Product Liability Case." April 24, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mcdonalds-coffee-product-liability-case/.

McDonald’s coffee too hot for human consumption, N.J. man says in lawsuit

• Updated: May. 29, 2024, 7:25 a.m. |
• Published: May. 29, 2024, 7:15 a.m.

Joseph Megara filed a lawsuit against McDonald's in Swedesboro, claiming a worker spilled hot coffee in his lap at the drive-through window. Google Maps

• Anthony G. Attrino | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

A New Jersey man has filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s in Swedesboro, claiming he was injured at the drive-thru window when a worker spilled coffee on him that he says was too hot for human consumption.

Joseph Megara, 49, of Woolwich, claims in court papers he was injured and his car interior damaged about 7:30 a.m. Jan. 24 at the McDonald’s in the 1700 block of Center Square Road.

McDonald’s did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed May 10 in Superior Court of Gloucester County.

The McDonald’s worker is accused of acting negligently and causing the cup of hot coffee to spill on Megara’s lap, according to the lawsuit. Megara suffered “severe injury” and damage to the vehicle’s interior, the suit says.

The suit seeks to hold McDonald’s accountable for “serving coffee heated to a temperature that was unfit for human consumption and dangerous.” Megara claims he lost time from work, and incurred expenses to repair and clean the inside of his vehicle.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of claims against the fast-food chain alleging injuries due to excessively hot beverages.

In January, a 58-year-old Morris County woman claimed she was injured when hot tea spilled on her at the McDonald’s in the 200 block of Route 10 East in Roxbury Township.

In November, a 74-year-old Essex County woman claimed she suffered burns when the lid popped off a tea cup at a McDonald’s in Newark.

On Sept. 25, a Hudson County woman filed a lawsuit claiming she suffered burns resulting in scarring after she purchased hot coffee at the McDonald’s in the 3000 block of John F. Kennedy Boulevard in Union City.

That lawsuit was filed 11 days after an 85-year-old woman sued a McDonald’s in San Francisco, claiming the lid on her cup wasn’t fastened properly and she was burned when the coffee spilled all over her car.

In 1992, a woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico, successfully sued a McDonald’s franchise when she was burned by a coffee spill. In that lawsuit, the woman’s attorneys successfully argued that McDonald’s served its coffee up to 30 degrees hotter than other restaurants.

Stories by Anthony G. Attrino

• I got demoted for reporting harassment by N.J. cops, detective says in lawsuit
• Stop gassing geese at major N.J. airport, animal group says. Protest planned.
• Ferrari dealership failed to fix recalled brakes before fatal crash in N.J., lawsuit says

Anthony G. Attrino may be reached at [email protected] . Follow him on X @TonyAttrino . Find NJ.com on Facebook .

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.