Hot Coffee Case Summary

The case Hot Coffee is an interesting case that took place in a sensitive point in recent judicial tort reform. It was a product liability lawsuit which took place in 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff Stella Liebeck. She was a 79-year-old woman who had suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. The jury issued a list of damages which included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000.Her

It was to make sure that the coffee reached its customers in a reasonable manner to avoid harm. Also it was to make sure that the coffee was in a safe container meant for transportation. McDonalds violated their duty of care by having their coffee at an above average temperature and didn’t convey this information to their customers. The tortfeasor or the person coming the tort in this case was McDonalds. Their actions were negligent because Liebeck’s lawyers obtained documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. Liebeck was award $2.86 million dollars by the jury but it was reduced to $640,000 by the trail judge. It was reduced because of a cap that was present in the state when it came to these matters. Caps are bad because it creates disadvantages for consumers since they have limitations for claims while big corporations are protected from large settlements. Caps were created by corporations to protect corporations; this limits the potential of our legal