In the 10 years before the case, more than people who were scalded by coffee burns made claims against the company. She was not driving while she was trying to drink her coffee, and she spilled it when the car was parked and not moving.
The case is still the subject of debate about whether or not the claim was frivolous. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously.
Serious, third degree burns occur at degrees Fahrenheit in just two seconds. Just e-mail or call us for a free, no obligation confidential consultation.
One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it.
Unfortunately, she spilled the entire liquid contents onto her lap. These previous claims showed that McDonalds knew, or should have known, about the danger associated with the high temperatures of the coffee.
Our Comment on the McDonald's Hot Coffee Verdict Any common consumer product which can cause third-degree burns the worst kind in two to seven seconds is seriously dangerous. The company had no plans to either turn down the heat or warn their customers of the scalding danger.
Even though the punitive damages award seemed high, it only amounted to about two days' worth of national coffee sales for McDonalds at that time. McDonald's Restaurants is often used and misused to describe a frivolous lawsuit and referenced in conjunction with tort reform efforts.
When consumers use products the way in which they are intended to be used and are seriously injured, the companies may be liable to pay damages to compensate them for their losses. Liebeck, 79 years old at the time of the incident, was injured when her grandson stopped so that she could add cream and sugar to the coffee.
He testified that liquids at degrees would cause a full-thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Factual Background On Feb. Liebeck, 79 years old at the time of the incident, was injured when her grandson stopped so that she could add cream and sugar to the coffee.
These hyper-heated beverages should be eliminated from the marketplace. This case received a great deal of publicity and became a prime example for frivolous lawsuits which garnered large monetary damages. But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it.
Liebeck's age may have caused her injuries to have been worse than they might have been in a younger individual," since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury.
The judge also has the authority to disregard the jury's finding or decrease the amount of damages. The Law Firm You Choose Makes a Difference In the largest injury case in the history of the world, we were selected as the only Arizona law firm to represent the State of Arizona against American tobacco companies for the past, present and future costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses.
Some observers wonder why McDonald's, after years of settling coffee-burn cases, chose to take this one to trial. One of the main benefits emanating from the trial was revealed when a post-verdict investigation showed that that temperature of the coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had been reduced to degrees Fahrenheit, a level still dangerous but less likely to cause injury if spilled.
Because the car had no cup holders and a slanted dashboard, Stella Liebeck put the cup between her knees and removed the lid.
Burns to the mouth and throat would occur if the consumer would drink the coffee at that temperature. Jan 07, · McDonalds argued that their customers knew the coffee was hot and the customers wanted it that way.
There was a statement on the side of the. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform.
The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case It is the case that gave rise to the attacks on “frivolous lawsuits” in the United States. Almost everyone seems to know about it. Most people have heard about the McDonald's coffee case and might have misconceptions about it.
The case, Liebeck v. McDonalds – The Truth Behind the Hot Coffee Case. Many people view the case as the classic example of a frivolous lawsuit, but the facts show that it was not.
McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction Provided by the Center for Justice & Democracy, New York City. The “McDonald’s coffee” case.
We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Ask most non-attorneys about the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit.
Chances are, they've heard of it; but the true facts of the case remain a mystery to many people, particularly those who ridicule the plaintiff as someone who took advantage of the legal system for financial gain.Mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit