Mcdonalds hot coffee lawsuit
Stella liebeck death
There was a statement on the side of the cup but McDonalds agreed that it was only a "reminder" that the coffee was hot. During the discovery phase of the litigation, several interesting facts came out that, through the years, were not discussed by the main stream media. We try to explain that valuing a personal injury case is as much an art as it is a science, and a lot of factors go into making that determination. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. In reality, the majority of damages in the case were punitive due to McDonald's' reckless disregard for the number of burn victims prior to Liebeck. However, even though the judge reduced the punitive damages award, he did conclude that McDonalds' conduct was "reckless, callous, and willful. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of " gross negligence " for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". She placed the cup of coffee between her legs and attempted to remove the lid.
The states have tried different methods to regulate punitive damages awards including 1 barring punitive damages altogether, 2 allowing punitive damages only when they are allowed by statute, 3 imposing a statutory limit in the form of an absolute monetary cap, and 4 imposing a maximum ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
Liebeck was degrees it would have cooled enough to avoid a significant injury when she spilled it.
The writing on the cup was not located in a position to serve as an actual warning and McDonalds admitted to this fact. McDonalds argued that their customers knew the coffee was hot and the customers wanted it that way.
He admitted that a burn risk existed for any food or drink served at over degrees and that the coffee poured into the cups was not yet fit for consumption since it was well above that temperature.
Mcdonalds coffee lawsuit documentary
Liebeck, rather than having the award overturned on appeal, entered into a settlement with McDonalds where she probably agreed to some lesser amount. Recent Blog Posts. This settlement which the parties agreed would remain secret, has never been revealed to the public despite the fact that the case received extensive public reporting. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. The high punitive damages award got quite a lot of press. We give you honest, realistic estimates of what we believe your case is worth. He also stated that McDonalds had no plans to reduce the temperature of its coffee. Even the United States Supreme Court has opted to limit punitive damages to single digit ratios to compensatory damages for several tort and contract cases. Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.
Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of " gross negligence " for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured".
McDonalds admitted that they had not studied the dangers associated with these high temperatures. She bought a cup of coffee, put it between her legs and drove off.
Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. A closer look at the facts of the case and the law reveal that the judge and jury probably made a good decision.
Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although it is not clear whether McDonald's in fact had done so.
based on 115 review