Almost everyone has heard the popular but inaccurate version of the McDonald’s scalding coffee lawsuit that became the rallying cry for big business and others that put profits above public safety. The facts of the case were spun by media sources and big business lobbying groups to such a degree that what most people think they know is very different from the actual facts.
The first issue that has been misrepresented is that this was a “hot coffee case” because the coffee in the case was actually scalding. McDonalds’ indicated that they had a policy in place that their coffee must be maintained at a temperature between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit whereas coffee at home is typically maintained at temperature of 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit. At the temperature that McDonalds’ admitted to keeping its coffee, an expert testified that a full thickness burn (third degree burn) would occur in less than seven seconds.
Many are under the misconception that the burn victim was driving a car and juggling coffee. In fact, the burn victim was a passenger and the vehicle was stopped so that the victim could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The cup that was between her legs tipped spilling the entire contents of the styrofoam cup into her lap. Because the 79-year-old woman was wearing sweat pants, the material held the scalding coffee against the victim’s flesh. She received third-degree burns over six percent of her body, including her genital, inner groins, thighs and buttock areas. The burn victim was forced to stay in the hospital for eight days and received multiple skin grafts and debridement treatments.
During the discovery process in the case, it was revealed that McDonalds’ was aware of 700 other victims that had suffered similar serious burns during the ten preceding years but had refused to reduce the scalding temperature of its coffee. A McDonalds’ representative also acknowledged that the coffee was not fit for human consumption at the temperature it was provided because it would severely burn the mouth and throat. The same witness also indicated that McDonald’s had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee even after the injuries suffered by the victim in this lawsuit.
The burn victim had offered to settle the case for $20,000, but McDonald’s refused to settle the lawsuit. Many media reports of the case shaped by advocates of big business misleadingly characterized this case as awarding “millions for hot coffee burns.” These accounts not only drastically understated the serious nature of the victim’s burns but also overstated the actual financial compensation received by the burn victim. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also assigned a percentage of fault to the burn victim. The media also widely reported that the jury awarded $2.6 million in punitive damages (2 days of profits from McDonald’s coffee sales), but it generally was not widely reported that this punitive damage award was reduced to $480,000 by the trial judge.
The McDonalds’ case is notable for its prominence, but other similar cases are promoted by big business in the media as justifying tort reform. The McDonalds’ case is an example of the misrepresentations often used to persuade the public that personal injury lawsuits should be more difficult to bring and result in less recovery. The reality is that many times these limits, which often include damage caps, prevent victims from receiving the full compensation necessary to rebuild their lives after devastating injuries that permanently alter an injury victim’s life. The experienced Mississippi personal injury attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to personal injury victims for over 75 years. We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.