Legal Cocktail Chatter: Part IV: McDonald's Has Hot Coffee

Part I: Unsavory Clients
Part II: Law School
Part III: The Bar

Please note that nothing here is to be construed as legal advice. This post does not in any way establish an attorney-client relationship.

Wasn't the McDonald's hot coffee case ridiculous?
No. It was actually a legitimate case grounded in basic tort law principles and remains good law. The "spun" version was the greatest piece of PR ever for insurance companies on the defense side.

McDonald's discovered they could use a very cheap bean for the coffee, but they had to use very, very hot water to extract the flavor. There are industry standards for precisely how hot a beverage should be. In this case, McDonald's ignored their own industry standards so they could save a few pennies. McDonald's had been warned repeatedly to lower the temperature of their beverages. They had even faced numerous similar lawsuits. They calculated the estimated cost of lawsuits, and decided it was still cheaper to use poor quality bean while paying for these lawsuits. In other words, McDonald's anticipated that their over-heated coffee would cause burn injuries, and that McDonald's would be liable for those injuries, but decided that the cost of paying for these injuries was less than the cost of using a higher quality bean that did not need to be heated to such high temperatures.

Come on...coffee is supposed to be hot!
The coffee was not merely hot. Most hot beverages will start to burn the skin within 3-5 seconds. In contrast, the coffee here was "instantaneous destruction of flesh" hot.

Could't McDonald's just have slapped a warning on the coffee?
Businesses owe their customers a certain duty of care. Giving an open cup of "instantaneous destruction of flesh" hot coffee to a drive-through customer breaches that duty of care. The potential for serious injury is easy to foresee, and the solution (always include a lid, lower temperatures) does not place a significant burden on the business. And, no, you don't escape liability just because you give a warning!

Isn't that lady a gazillionaire now?
The original damages, decided by a jury, represented McDonald's coffee profits from two days. These damages were eventually reduced to under $300,000, which is a very fair judgment given the extent of the injuries - third degree burns to the inner thigh and genital area.

Why don't you lawyers believe in personal responsibility?
We do. We also believe in corporate responsibility.

Please note that nothing here is to be construed as legal advice. This post does not in any way establish an attorney-client relationship.

***
Tip/trick/lesson of the day: Enter my raffle! Also, free Krispy Kreme donuts today.