Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, purchased a cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-through in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While parked, she placed the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled onto her lap, causing third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, groin, and buttocks. She required extensive hospitalization, skin grafts, and two years of medical treatment. Evidence showed McDonald's served its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, far hotter than coffee served at home or by competitors, and that over 700 prior burn claims had been filed against the company.

The jury considered evidence that McDonald's served its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, which is capable of causing third-degree burns within seconds of contact with skin. Expert testimony established that coffee served at lower temperatures would cause less severe injuries and allow time for the victim to remove clothing and limit contact. McDonald's was aware of over 700 prior burn complaints but had made a corporate decision not to lower the temperature, partly because its consultants told it that reducing temperature might affect taste. The jury found this decision-making reflected a conscious disregard of a known danger, warranting punitive damages.

Liebeck became a flashpoint in the American tort reform debate. Opponents of the tort system held it up as an example of runaway juries, while proponents argued it was a case where the system worked as intended — holding a corporation accountable for knowingly serving a dangerous product. The case influenced public perception of tort law, prompted legislative efforts to cap punitive damages, and is regularly used in law school to teach about products liability, comparative fault, and the role of punitive damages.