The Real Story Behind the McDonald's Coffee Case

The case involving a spilled cup of coffee at McDonald's has been touted for years as an example of how far awry our justice system has gone.  "Everyone knows coffee is hot! How can you sue someone over that?" has been a common refrain, as we shake our heads and wonder what the plaintiff was thinking.  Why should McDonald's pay for a self-inflicted injury everyone should know to expect?  Most of us, however, have not heard all the facts of the case.  McDonald's internal policies required coffee to be kept at the unconsummable and unsafe temperature of 185 degrees.  Liquid at this temperature is prevented from cooling quickly, increasing the severity of any injury caused by coming into contact with it.  McDonald's was completely aware of this danger and had received numerous (around 700) complaints about the coffee causing third-degree burns before this particular plaintiff was injured.  This plaintiff did not suffer minor injuries - she required hospitalization, debridement, and skin grafts as a result of the spill.  She was not "drinking and driving" or opening a cup in a moving vehicle.  She was a passenger in a stopped car simply trying to add cream and sugar.  She was not overly litigious, asking for only $20,000 to compensate her for her injuries.  McDonald's refused to offer anything.  At trial, she was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced to $160,000 due to her own partial fault for the injuries) and $2.7 million in punitive damages.  The punitive damage amount was later reduced.  The plaintiff was not "gaming the system" or pushing her own responsibility onto others.  She simply sought reasonable compensation from injury caused by a product knowingly kept at a dangerous temperature.  As you hear stories about "ridiculous verdicts" and plaintiff's abusing our legal system, take a few moments to learn the real facts of a particular case before making up your own mind.  Please follow the link above to a more in-depth article reviewing the case.