The Hot Coffee Tort Case Study
The “Hot Coffee case is one of the most notorious tort law cases in the United States. We are
going to examine the case in some detail as an example of how tort law works and how tort
law can be easily misunderstood.
Quick Summary
In 1994 a 79-year-old woman bought a cup of coffee from the drive thru window at
McDonalds. She put the cup between her knees and tried to open the lid to add cream and
sugar. The coffee spilled and caused third degree burns to over 16% of her body. She spent 8
days in the hospital, had to undergo skin graft operations, and proceeded to seek medical
treatment for two years after the incident.





Has someone done something wrong?
Why or why not?
What was that wrongdoing?
Has someone been harmed?
Should the victim be compensated?
Media and a Pop Culture Moment
The Hot Coffee Case became part of pop culture and widely reported and derided as a the
very definition of a frivolous lawsuit during the 1990s.
Watch the reports and clips on the Hot Coffee case found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE
(Woman Burned by McDonald’s Hot Coffee, then the News Media Retro Report from the
NYTimes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddO136L2VO0
(Burned by the Media: Million Dollar Coffee Lawsuit by KRQE news from February 26, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddO136L2VO0
(Seinfeld clips: Kramer and the hot coffee)
Now for the details…
The Liebeck case is the famous "coffee" case launched against McDonald's for continuing to
serve hot coffee at dangerously high temperatures. Here we are going to explore the facts
behind the lawsuit and we arrive at the conclusion that Liebeck was more than justified in
suing the company for its poor business practices.
Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald’s International Inc.
The 1994 case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s is cited frequently as a sign of lawsuit-happy
citizens, and frivolous cases. News reports claimed that Liebeck drove with her cup of
McDonald’s coffee between her legs, and spilled the contents of her cup on herself, winning
millions of dollars from the company. However, the facts of the case are much different than
the popular media portrayed.
The facts of the case
Stella Liebeck was 79 years old at the time she spilled the coffee, which was around 185
degrees Fahrenheit, according to McDonald’s policy about brewing and holding temperature
for their hot coffee (Consumer Attorneys of California).
Coffee above normal temperature
Experts say that coffee at McDonald’s policy temperature would cause third-degree burns,
which require extensive hospital care and recovery costing more than $10,000, in only a
matter of seconds (Rutherford, 73). Reports find that other restaurants serve coffee at a mean
temperature of 162.4 degrees and that homebrewed coffee is typically around 135-140
degrees (Rutherford, 64; Consumer Attorneys of California).
Passenger, not driver
Liebeck was not driving, either; she was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, which
was parked in the McDonald’s parking lot while she put cream and sugar into her coffee, but
she had a difficult time removing the lid with only one hand, set the cup between her thighs,
and spilled the scalding coffee on her thighs and groin (Consumer Attorneys of California).
More than 700 previous complaints about injuries
McDonald’s had received at least 700 documented reports of similar injuries due to their
coffee, and in each instance had settled out of court; Liebeck’s family asked the corporation
for $20,000, just enough to cover her hospital stay of six days and reconstructive surgery, but
was denied the settlement (Consumer Attorneys of California).
No changes in store policies
Furthermore, following those claims, McDonald’s made clear its intentions of not lowering the
temperatures of its coffee, saying that its consumers intended to take the coffee to their
destination, that they wanted the coffee that hot, but also that the consumers were unaware
that they could suffer 3rd degree burns from their product (Consumer Attorneys of California).
Damages caused by McDonald's negligence
Since McDonald's refused to rectify the situation, Liebeck filed for compensation in civil court.
Taking into account the willful refusal to lower temperatures, the presiding judge awarded
Liebeck with $160,000 in compensatory damages—the jury originally awarded $200,000 but
reduced the award because they found Liebeck partially responsible for the spill—and $2.7
million (the equivalent of two days’ worth of coffee sales for McDonald’s) in punitive damages
to prevent McDonald’s from repeating their negligent mistake, but the punitive damages were
later lowered to $480,000 in accordance with tort laws in Liebeck’s state (Consumer Attorneys
of California).
The issues were focused mostly on McDonald’s willful refusal to adjust the temperature of
their coffee, despite knowing it was a dangerous temperature, and having nearly 1,000
reports of similar injuries before Liebeck’s injury in 1992; the presiding judge said that
McDonald’s conduct was “reckless, callous, and willful” (Consumer Attorneys of California).
McDonald’s showed with its actions, including offering Liebeck’s family only $800 after their
first request for money to cover hospital bills (Consumer Attorneys of California), that the
wellbeing of their consumers was not a priority, which marked them as a target for bad public
relations; they retaliated by creating the public image of Stella Liebeck that fuelled the debate
for tort reform and frivolous lawsuits, which painted her as a selfish woman only out for
money.
Upholding the Court Decision
The McDonald’s corporation had to make the decision to uphold its interest in its customers
since the judge ruled McDonald's is responsible due to it being a corporate personhood. But
instead turned its back on Liebeck when she requested assistance paying for bills necessary
for repairing the grievous damage to her legs that was a direct result of the corporate policy
regarding coffee temperatures, which McDonald’s admitted to having an awareness of. In the
time since the case, McDonald’s did not appear to make corporate-wide efforts to better warn
its customers about the risks of the hot temperatures, to which Rutherford says:
“Restaurant operators can insulate themselves from a great deal of litigation by
establishing policies that demonstrate knowledge of the risk of hot beverages, and by
implementing procedures, training, and supervision to eliminate that risk” (75).
Rutherford reported a study in which he took part, which found that the majority of the drivethrough attendants did not give any real verbal indication to the testers posing as customers,
though McDonald’s was:
“significantly more likely than the other restaurants to provide a written warning” (74).
It’s arguable that the warnings on the cup alone are not good enough a preventative measure.
McDonald’s corporation seems to have learned from their mistakes in some small way,
according to the studies, which say:
“McDonald’s, in particular, seems to be serving coffee at a temperature significantly below
that of its peers” (Rutherford, 75).
Regardless, the temperatures reported in Rutherford’s study could still cause harsh burns
within seconds (75). This indicates that McDonald’s only took the minimum amount of action
to repair its damaged reputation and care for its future consumers, but lacking any standard
regulations means the risk of repeating this case.
Works Cited
Consumer Attorneys of California. "Fact Sheet About the McDonalds' Scalding Coffee Case
[2011-02-21]." Peter DeFilippis & Associates, P.C.. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
http://1917.pd.lawyers.com/Publications/Articles/Fact%20Sheet%20About%20the%20McDon
alds%20Coffee%20Burn%20Case.aspx.
Rutherford, D. G.. "Lessons From Liebeck: QSRs Cool The Coffee." Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly 39.3 (1998): 72-75. Print.
Activity: Case Analysis
Respond to the questions below to complete your case analysis. Ensure you answer in full and
complete sentences. You should refer to the work from Chapter 11 as well as the video we
watched and the information provided.
1. Identify the parties involved in the case.
The parties involved were McDonalds Restaurants, and Stella Liebeck.
2. Who is the defendant? Who is the plaintiff?
The defendant was McDonalds Restaurants, the plaintiff was Stella Liebeck
3. When did this case take place?
The trial took place August 8-17, in 1994.
4. What is the basis or premise of this case? Why can one person take the other to court?
This was a product liability law suit, in which Stella could take McDonald’s to court, because
she felt they were responsible for the majority of the injuries she suffered, due to their failed
duty of care of making their products safe.
5. Is this case a tort or a crime or both? Explain your response.
It is tort, as no criminal law was violated, so only monetary compensation can be given as
punishment for the irresponsible actions of one party. McDonald’s had failed in their duty of
care.
6. What duty did the defendant owe the plaintiff?
To provide the coffee safely
7. Was there a breach of duty?
Yes, as McDonald’s had the duty of care of making sure their coffee was safe to consume and
use.
8. Did the defendant cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff?
Partially, as they did cause the coffee to be at a hazardous temperature, yet the plaintiff was
responsible for the actual spilling of the coffee
9. What kind of damages did the plaintiff suffer?
Physical, as the burns caused were of the 2nd and 3rd degree,
10.What, if anything, did the plaintiff do wrong?
They spilled the coffee on their own.
11.What, if anything, did the defendant do wrong?
They provided the coffee at an unsafe temperature
12.What arguments does the plaintiff make that they should be awarded damages?
That the injuries would not have occurred if the coffee provided was of a safe temperature.
This shifts the liability to the defendant
13.What arguments does the defendant make that they should not have to pay damages?
The plaintiff was the one who actually spilled the coffee, causing the injuries.
14.What type of tort case is this?
It is a negligence case
15.What are the elements of a tort and how do they apply to this case?
A tort is defined as a wrong, whether international or unintentional, in which harm was caused
to the plaintiff, the harm was foreseeable, and the defendants actions contributed to the harm
the plaintiff suffered.
16.How were the elements of negligence present in this case?
The tort was clearly unintentional. Physical harm was caused to the plaintiff, due to the burns
from the coffee. The harm was foreseeable, as they had received many complaints regarding
their coffee temperatures beforehand, and had simply refused to lower it. By refusing, the
defendant had contributed to the harm that Stella Liebeck suffered.
17.What remedies are available in this case?
Civil Remedies are available for this case. More precisely, Special, Punitive, Aggravated, and
Nominal Damages are all available for this case.
18.What remedies were ultimately decided by the courts?
The courts decided on covering Compensatory damages (Special damages), and Punitive
damages.
19.What is your opinion of this case? Do you believe the decision and settlement were
just? Explain your response.
My opinion is that the case itself was judged very well. The damages were preciously what I
would personally see doled out to Stella Liebeck. McDonald’s had acted irresponsibly. They
needed to pay for what they had done. While I feel the case itself, and the resulting decision
and settlement were just, I feel like Stella Liebeck should have done more after the case. She
should have made her true story heard. McDonald’s had used their vast resources to discredit
the case. They had run a huge disinformation campaign. They even made a front group
(citizens against lawsuit abuse) to make it seem like frivolous lawsuits ran rampant. If Stella
Liebeck could prove this, she could get McDonald’s back under libel, and by doing so, have
changed the power dynamics of huge corporations marketing campaigns for years. She could
have prevented her name from being dragged through the mud. In conclusion, the case itself
was just, but the aftermath was not.