A $3 million award for an elderly woman who sued McDonald’s after spilling hot coffee on her lap has led to a widespread misconception about nonsense lawsuits.

The idea of absurd, unnecessary lawsuits became widespread in the ’90s when 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled hot coffee on her lap, sued McDonalds and was initially awarded almost $3 million in damages.

Although most people have heard about the case, few know the real facts. Developing an understanding of what happened and how the case unfolded will help consumers realize the difference between nonsense lawsuits and legitimate causes for legal action.

How The Hot Coffee Case Began

In 1992, Liebeck bought a McDonald’s coffee at a drive-thru in Albuquerque. While sitting in the passenger seat in a parked car in the McDonald’s lot, she attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee.

Placed between her knees while removing the cup’s lid, the hot liquid covered her lap. The car was not in motion when the the coffee spilled.

The coffee was stifling hot, soaking through her sweatpants and scalding the skin and flesh on her legs, inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genitals and groin. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns and needed skin grafts on her inner thighs. Over 16 percent of her body was burned.

Her grandson, the driver of the vehicle, took her to the emergency room after she went into shock from the severity of the injury. She was hospitalized for eight days.

Liebeck wasn’t the only one injured by the scalding hot coffee. McDonald’s corporate policy allowed the coffee to be served at 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit, a temperature that could cause serious burs. Coffee brewed at home is usually between 135 to 140 degrees.

In the legal proceedings, the quality assurance manager at McDonald’s acknowledged that an injury is possible with any substance served at 140 degrees or above, making it more than likely that the coffee would burn the mouth and throat.

The restaurant had received more than 700 previous reports of third-degree burns and other injuries from its coffee. Despite the fact that McDonald’s had already paid injured plaintiffs, the company didn’t alter the standard temperature of their brew. 

The Decision To Sue

Liebeck and her family made the decision to sue after McDonald’s refused to pay her medical bills in full.
Image: Liar City

Liebeck reached out to McDonald’s requesting assistance with medical bills, which amounted to over $10,000. Because of the incident, she was permanently disfigured and partially disabled.

She asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. McDonald’s offered her a maximum of $800, which prompted her to go to trial.

McDonald’s refused to fix the temperature policy despite hundreds of injuries, and the jury awarded Liebeck the money from McDonald’s coffee sales for two days.  The million-dollar amount that Liebeck was initially awarded in punitive damages spread like wildfire throughout media platforms.

Because Liebeck was partially at fault for her injuries, the original award of $2.86 million was reduced by 80 percent, which prompted Liebeck and McDonald’s to come to a confidential settlement in order to avoid the lengthy appeals process.

According to a documentary about the case, called Hot Coffee: Is Justice Being Served?, the facts are as follows:

• McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
• McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
• McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

Jurors commented that the original award was so hefty because McDonald’s had a “callous disregard for the safety of the people.”

Legal action is often more legitimate than you think. Before you assume a case is unwarranted, don’t forget to learn the facts.

The post Legitimate or Nonsense Lawsuits: Liebeck V. McDonald’s appeared first on Citizens Report.

Animal rights groups have long targeted McDonald’s for its food processing practices, but a recent investigation from Mercy For Animals has put heat on the big-league fast food chain once again.

Most people know how animals are treated in the American meat industry… even if they would prefer to pretend that they don’t. But if you haven’t ever seen an animal abuse video, you’re in for a wake-up call.

Mercy For Animals, a non-profit organization that focuses on the abuse of farm animals and promotes compassionate food choices, has released film of heart-wrenching cruelty at a Tennessee farm that provides chicken for Tyson Foods, Inc., which then supplies the meat to McDonald’s.

The investigation has created a rift in the partnerships of the involved parties. In addition to impacting business, the film has caused a media outcry that further exposes the horrendous living conditions of animals that end up in a box of McNuggets.

Undercover Documentation of Animal Cruelty

Employees from T&S Farm in Dukedom, Tenn., are caught using cruel tactics to manage thousands of chickens living in a dark, dirty and cramped atmosphere. The farm housed chickens that would later be sold as McDonald’s McNuggets.

In the video, a female worker beats, bludgeons and stabs the flapping bodies of frightened chickens with a sharp metal rod. She is shown stomping on a chicken’s head before using the sole of her shoe to hold the its body in place while she breaks its neck.

A particularly sad part of the video illustrates that many chickens remain alive while they are being readied for the consumer’s plate. They appear to be sick, injured and terrified.

“This type of abuse runs rampant in the animal agriculture industry, which seeks to maximize profit and minimize costs at the expense of animals, public health and the environment,” says Matt Rice, Director of Investigations at Mercy For Animals.

The Corporate Reaction To Ditch The Abusive Supplier

Animal rights activist group PETA takes a stance against McDonald’s treatment of chickens with the McCruelty campaign.
Via: McCruelty

McDonald’s and Tyson no longer have a relationship with T&S Farm. The two are working together to investigate the claim in addition to the investigation conducted by the local sheriff’s office at Weakley County.

“Animal well-being is a priority at our company and we will not tolerate the unacceptable animal treatment shown in this video,” Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman said.

McDonald’s supported and elaborated on the statement, saying that the behavior of the farm’s employees was completely unacceptable.

“We’re committed to working with animal welfare and industry experts to inform our policies that promote better management, strong employee education and verification of practices,” McDonald’s said.

The documentation of abuse is particularly relevant after McDonald’s recently announced a new plan to clean up its food sources, avoid certain antibiotics and focus on ensuring better treatment of animals.

It’s important to realize that although McDonald’s made a progressive move by ditching T&S Farm, animal abuse in the meat industry continues.

McDonald’s gets a thumbs up for taking a stance against an abusive supplier. But the fight to end standardized animal cruelty is far from over.

The post McDonald’s Ditches Abusive McNugget Supplier appeared first on Citizens Report.