Stella liebeck1/25/2024 Stunned by the chains reckless business decisions, it was a jury of her peers that awarded 2 days of coffee sales to Liebeck, approximately 2.7 million for punitive damages. She received a reasonable compensatory award but it was the punitive damage award that stirred the media into a frenzy. The jury found defendant to be 80% responsible and Liebeck 20% responsible for her injuries. Defendant further admitted that their customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from their scalding coffee. Defendant’s own quality assurance manager testified that their coffee served at 185 in a Styrofoam cup was not fit for human consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat and further, that the chain had no intention of reducing the holding temperature of its coffee. At trial, the jury learned that defendant’s policy manual required all restaurants hold their coffee between 180-190 degrees-a business decision to optimize taste, reduce waste and marginalize loss. However, at 187 (the temperature at which the fast food restaurant coffee was held),you have only 2-7 seconds to remove yourself from the situation before receiving 3 rddegree burns. At that range you have up to 25 seconds to remove yourself from the situation before receiving burn injuries. When the coffee is poured into a ceramic cup, the heat dissipates even further. The evidence produced at trialĪ typical home brewer serves coffee at a range of 142 to 162. The restaurant wanted to go to trial and put the issue to rest for potential future litigants- more than 700 of them, many of which had suffered third degree burns since 1982. The day before trial, defense chose not to show up at the scheduled mediation (a last ditch attempt to settle before exercising the court system.) Why? At the time, New Mexico juries had never before found favorably for a plaintiff in any product liability case. Prior to trial, Liebeck’s attorney unsuccessfully offered to settle the case with the fast food chain and to graciously waive his own attorney fees in favor of his client. Plaintiff’s personal injury attorney made a last ditch attempt to settle the claim ![]() Future correspondence with the restaurant chain went unanswered. The fast food chain countered with an offer of $800.00. One attempt to settle directly with the fast food chain was made early on by Stella’s daughter for the amount of $20,000 to cover Stella’s medical bills of $13,000 and her mother’s lost wages. Several attempts at a direct settlement were made by Stella’s family prior to retaining an attorney. Injured plaintiff offered to settle for only $20,000 ![]() She never fully recovered from the gruesome injuries. She was scalded so badly, there were some doctors that thought she might not make it at all. She spent eight days in the hospital for skin grafting procedures and an additional two years of medical treatments. She suffered third degree burns on 16% of her body including her abdomen, buttocks, thighs and groin when the coffee was absorbed by the sweat pants she was wearing. ![]() She placed the Styrofoam cup of coffee between her knees and lifted the far side of the lid toward her when the cup collapsed in her lap. Since the car was without cup holders, her grandson parked the car so Stella could add cream, and sugar to her coffee. In 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, was driven by her grandson through the drive-thru of a fast food restaurant for a breakfast order. The facts behind the personal injury lawsuit Here are the facts surrounding Stella Liebeck’s case against the fast food restaurant for knowingly serving scalding hot coffee, capable of producing third degree burns in less than 7 seconds. Sound bites about the ‘ hot coffee’ case against a fast food chain have been crafted to malign and ridicule personal injury attorneys and the American legal justice system for the purpose of achieving local and ultimately national tort reform legislation in America. Propaganda is a tool used for the purpose of swaying opinion. The Truth Surrounding Stella Liebeck’s Personal Injury “Hot Coffee” Litigation and the Jury’s Punitive Damages Award | Indianapolis, IN Personal Injury Lawyers McDonald’s hot coffee case spun by tort reform propagandists
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |