JURY SELECTION AND THE MYTH OF THE McDONALD'S HOT COFFEE CASE

JURY SELECTION AND THE MYTH OF THE McDONALD’S HOT COFFEE CASE

It’s been over fourteen years since the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case made headlines and when we select jurors in Connecticut, we still hear about it. But not a single juror who I have interviewed in what we call the voir dire process has ever managed to even closely approximate the true facts of the case. To be sure, people recall that some woman sued McDonald’s after she spilled coffee on herself. From that point onward, potential jurors’ accounts bear no relationship to reality. Clearly, the myth of the McDonald’s cases has morphed into the most often cited mythic case of lawsuit abuse. Politicians, right wing talking heads and the ill informed perpetuate the myth. I’ve heard that the Plaintiff Stella Liebeck recovered millions of dollars from countless people.

The reality, however, is very different. Ms. Liebeck did suffer severe burn injuries when she spilled coffee on herself as she was attempting to add cream to her Styrofoam cup. She was not driving. She was a passenger. Her injuries included 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body including her thighs, buttocks, perineum and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, requiring skin grafts and debridement of her wounds. McDonald’s could have accepted Mrs. Liebeck’s offer to settle the case for a mere $20,000 but it refused. Then the case was filed and McDonald’s outrageous conduct was exposed.

It turned out that Mrs. Liebeck was not the first McDonald’s customer to be scalded by excessively hot coffee. That’s right. McDonald's had received more than 700 other claims in the ten (10) year period prior to trial. McDonald's also admitted to purposefully maintaining the temperature of its coffee between 180 and 190 degree Fahrenheit as compared to coffee at home that is generally in the 130 to 140 degree range. And further, McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that food and beverages were not fit for human consumption at a temperature of 140 degree or higher because it would burn the mouth and throat.

There are more interesting details including the fact that the jury only awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages and then reduced it to $160,000 representing the 20% comparative fault that it found. In addition, the jury wanted to assess McDonald's with punitive damages under Arizona law in the amount of $2.7 million dollars for its indifference. That amount represented two (2) days of McDonald’s coffee sales. As always happens in a case involving a large award of damages, the trial judge was asked to review the award and he reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000. For Mrs. Liebeck, now a legend in her own time, her recovery was about $400,000 . That amount certainly doesn’t seem disproportionate for a woman suffering 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body and requiring skin grafts in a very sensitive area.

One moral of this story, aside from being extra careful with hot drinks, is to be skeptical about claims made by those people and groups who bash the civil justice system and want to deprive you of your constitutional right to a jury trial. Absent reliable evidence or case citation, anecdotes should not be influential when important rights are at stake.

A second lesson to be learned relates to the types of inaccurate influences that can impact on our ability to pick fair and impartial jurors. The myth of the McDonald’s case has fostered the impression that people bring dumb lawsuits refusing to accept personal responsibility. In reality, the dumb lawsuits that are filed, are roundly condemned by most responsible lawyers and those cases are almost always dismissed. Moreover, it is very common that a person who claims damages in court also bears some responsibility for his or her own negligence. The existing rules provide for reduction of an award to reflect the injured party’s carelessness. That called the comparative negligence rule and that is what happened to Mrs. Liebeck. Finally, while there truly is no incentive for a party or a lawyer to bring a “frivolous” lawsuit, both state and federal rules provide for sanctioning parties and lawyers who bring frivolous cases. There is no need to change our laws.

For more information about how McDonald’s burned Stella Liebeck and then permitted this unflattering myth to be perpetuated, please go to the web site of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America at: http://www.atlanet.org/convention/SE06/
I think you’ll agree that the McDonald’s myth just doesn’t “cut the mustard”.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel. (203) 325-8600
Fax (203) 323-5970
Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy
http://www.casperdetoledo.com