Thursday, September 22, 2011

In Defense of the McDonald's Coffee Cup Case - Again

Here we go again. Ana Veciana-Suarez' article in the Miami Herald over the weekend entitled "Why take responsibility when you can sue?" once again uses misinformation and public misconception as an unfair basis for indicting our nation's tort system.

Every trial lawyer worth his salt knows to spend a great deal of time during the jury selection process weeding out those jurors who have preconceived (negative) sentiments about the way our legal system compensates victims of negligence with money damages. Even toady, 15 years later, we trial lawyers float the McDonald's coffee cup case balloon with all of its inherent misconceptions  as a way of finding out who amongst the prospective jury panel will be unable to give our clients a fair day in court. The questions and answers during jury selection (known as "voir dire" which literally means "to speak the truth") typically go something like this:

Q. Who here has heard of the McDonald's coffee cup case where a woman was awarded millions of dollars after she spilt hot McDonald's coffee of herself?
(several hands go up)
Q. Okay, prospective juror number 1, what are your thoughts about that case?
A. It just goes to show you that our judicial system is broken, gone amok, and that all Plaintiffs are lying, cheating, opportunists. You spill coffee on yourself, then it's your fault and I don't care what happened before or after that.

The problem is I have never heard one prospective juror get the facts of the case right. This is understandable in light of how the media wrongly reported and continues to wrongly discuss the case. See Ana Veciana-Suarez' editorial.
Here are the facts of the infamous McDonald's coffee cup case. I'm using bullet points to highlight key aspects of the case, but you can see a more through article by Wall Street Journal writer Andrea Gerlin (September 1, 1994) here.
  • Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old former department store clerk who had never brought a lawsuit before in her life, bought a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-though;
  • While removing the lid in order to add sugar and cream, she spilt scalding hot coffee on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks and sustained third-degree burns (the worst kind) in her private parts area;
  • She spent 7 days in the hospital undergoing multiple skin graft procedures, and the jury was shown graphic photographs of her injuries (something the public never saw). Two years of medical treatment followed;
  • She offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to compensate her for medical bills (which were $11,000) and pain and suffering;
  • At a court ordered mediation, the mediator - a retired judge - recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000, believing that would be a likely jury verdict at trial. McDonald's rejected that recommendation;
  • In the decade before Ms. Liebeck's incident, McDonald's had received over 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third-degree, and had settled multiple similar claims of scalding injuries;
  • McDonald's argued that Ms. Liebeck's age may have been what caused her horrific burns since older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury;
  • A McDonald's executive testified that the company knew it coffee sometimes caused serious burns, that McDonald's had specifically decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, and that the company never consulted any burn experts before implementing it's hot coffee policy (this is company who at the time sold 1 billion cups of coffee per year);
  • The prestigious Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warning to the franchise food industry prior to the Liebeck incident suggesting that its members were causing serious burn injuries by serving beverages above 130 degrees;
  • McDonald's required franchisees to keep coffee hotter than what was recommend by Shriner's Burn Institute for two reasons: one, they believed coffee tasted better at 180-190 degrees; and two, their main coffee purchasers drank their coffee about 15 minutes after purchase, when they arrived at their place of employment;
  • The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck compensatory damages of $200,000 which was reduced to $160,000 because they found Ms. Leibeck was 20% responsible for her own injuries. They also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages based on what they felt was willful, reckless, malicious and wanton conduct on the part of McDonald's;
  • After the jury verdict, the judge reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000 using powers properly invested in him to correct any perceived wrongs;
  • Following the judge's reduction of the jury award, the parties then settled for a sum which was much less than the judge's reduced award.

So you see, that multi-million award evaporated just like McDonald's overly hot coffee. Yes, frivolous cases are bad. However, the vast majority - I would say 99.9% - of frivolous cases get bounced out of the system if not by juries, then by judges. Stella Liebeck's McDonald's coffee cup case was NOT frivolous. It was a case of "callous disregard for the safety of people" (according to one of the actual jurors) by the largest fast food seller in the world. In the end, after examining all the facts, justice was served.

By Bryant Esquenazi on July 12, 2010 3:59 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment