Let's keep the facts in mind and as many posters have already mentioned, let's use some reasonable common sense here.
Of course. The truth is, however, that with most tort cases the public hears only a few tidbits typically meant to magnify the apparent stupidity or ludicrousness of the case. The same thing has happened with the McDonalds coffee case.
She knowingly ordered a beverage that she knew was at an elevated temperature. The beverage was served in a cup with a warning label regarding temperature and a secure top to aid in preventing accidental spills. She purposefully removed this top in "not so ideal" conditions, the passenger seat of a car, and of her own negligence spilled the beverage on herself. She then remained in that state for "over 90 seconds".
Her own lawyer argued that the temperature of the beverage should be measured in accordance with the amount of time it would take to cause a burn.
However, as mentioned above, Ms. Liebeck took over 90 seconds to respond to the situation. Based on this information even a beverage at a lower temperature would have produced the same degree of injury due to her failure to respond immediately. In layman's terms, grandma should've listened to Snoop and "dropped it like it's hot".
The jury knew all of this, of course, and deducted from her award by an appropriate amount. They did find her partially liable for the tort, as is customary by tort procedure.
Despite Liebeck's own breach of duty (the legal term for not doing what a reasonable person would do), McDonald's still
increased the magnitude of the end result by keeping the coffee so hot. The type of pants Liebeck was wearing, while unfortunate, doesn't factor in here because the excessive temperature of the coffee would have still caused severe burns, and in general defendants are held liable even when the harm done to a plaintiff is more than typical or could have been theoretically lower (unless of course the plaintiff proceeded to be even more negligent after the tort).
Given that Liebeck was in her 70s at the time, one wouldn't expect her to be able to remove the burning sweat pants as rapidly as, say, a spry 20 year-old.
Consequently, this is also the part of the award that was not very large (comprising less than 20% of the original award), and after factoring out Liebeck's penalty due to breach of duty, it was actually less than some of the other coffee cases McDonalds had settled. The true impact of the jury's decision came from the punitive damages, which they decided should be worth two days of coffee revenue. Personally, I think we need some reform in the area of where punitive damages should go, but that isn't really what we're discussing here.
Also, regarding McDonalds perceived negligence in serving their coffee at such a high termperature, 180 °F (82 °C).
Ahh, I was expecting to see as much. While I normally recognize wikipedia as a good source of information about many topics, this quote of yours really highlights one of its most dangerous flaws.
That "evidence" you quoted is actually derived from a biased blog (overlawyered.com), which then does not have adequate citations (in fact none that I can see) for where the blogger got his information from.
Moreover, at the time of the trial, the McDonald's QA witness who testified didn't contest the claim that the coffee was kept hotter than other places. Seeing as how that was the evidence the jury had at its disposal, their decision is thus still correct. We also have to realize that 18 years later, many more places may in fact keep coffee above 80 C, but that doesn't mean that was the case in 1992.
Here's where we fail the "reasonable standard" test because other restaurants serve their coffee in the same temperature range. If McDonalds coffee was served at a standard significantly above the reasonable standard than the argument would be valid. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't support that.
While I've already covered one aspect of this (whether or not the coffee was really served at a 'standard' temperature), there is still one other reason why this logic doesn't stand for tort claims.
In the torts arena, simply doing what everyone else is doing isn't a complete defense. For example, at one time no railroads put up fences or signs warning people of danger. What actions are deemed reasonable is always kept in line with what can and should be done relative to cost and physical limitations. 200 years ago no one would have expected coffee to be kept within certain temperature boundaries since it was very difficult to do.
In 1992 there really wasn't much stopping McDonalds from monitoring their coffee better or keeping it a little cooler. Their choice to keep the coffee that hot was a business decision akin to the Ford Pinto. Doing the right thing simply costs more, and so the company didn't do it. That was the evidence the jury heard, and that is why they arrived at such a decision.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't claim to understand the historical precedence or legal specifics of the "principles of comparative negligence". But, in my mind, given the other facts, this part is ridiculous. No one can argue that Ms. Liebeck is less than 100% at fault for spilling the coffee on herself. But hey, in our world today there is no such thing as an accident or personal responsibility. Hey, if I was juror on the case I would have felt bad for the poor lady as well. The circumstances were unfortunate, but that doesn't mean it was McDonald's fault.
She is fully at fault for spilling the coffee, but not for burning herself to the 3rd degree. That part was outside of her control but in McDonald's control (to an extent). That is what they were found liable for. The punitive damages awarded to Liebeck were seemingly out of spite on the jury's part because McDonald's executives and witnesses had come off as callous and calculating. Like I said before, that part of the judgement I can agree needs reform, but the rest of the case was correctly decided.
First, you seem to have missed the sarcasm
No, it's hard to miss such an obvious attempt. I didn't appreciate the implication that you were making. It should not be obvious that a beverage can require skin grafts if handled incorrectly. Coffee and cooking devices simply can't be compared.
and second, your analogy fails the precedent of "reasonable expectation". You are correct in stating that there is a reasonable expectation that food served in a restaurant is prepared free from exposure to contaminants. In other words, food is intended to be served in a capacity that does not pose any potential risk and that belief is reasonable. Ordering a hot beverage that contains a warning label carries a different expectation and therefore a different measure of reasonable belief regarding the potential risk involved. In fact this argument was made in the Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd case in the United Kingdom where someone was suing for the same reason as Liebeck.
There is no reasonable expectation to expect such severe burning when handling a cup of coffee. No one is saying that one should expect absolutely no injury at all, but the severity of these injuries is far outside the realm of reasonable. The coffee was near boiling. I don't care how talented you are, you can't drink a cup of near-boiling coffee, never mind the huge potential for senseless injury that can result from such a hot beverage for both employees and customers.
If it was really so reasonable to expect, people wouldn't have been litigating against McDonalds for a decade prior to Liebeck, the judge would have dismissed the case immediately, and McDonalds would have appealed the verdict. The fact that McDonalds settled the case for a sum more than the judge's ruling tells us that they were afraid of the trial judge's reduction being overturned, and for a broader appellate court ruling that would have opened them up to a far larger review of their practices.
I think this is pretty self explanatory unless you want to argue that it is "unreasonable" for someone to believe that they could be burned by something that is HOT if they do not take proper precautions.
Again, no one argues with the fact that Liebeck was stupid to try to open her coffee cup while balancing it between her legs. Even the jury acknowledged that. However, it's the extent of the damage that was above and beyond what a reasonable beverage should cause that is the issue. 3rd degree burns are simply unacceptable from a beverage, and McDonalds was well aware of the issue long before Liebeck had her grandson take her to the drive-through that day.
Then you have to think 'what is a sane american' person.
The lawsuits thrown about is pathetic - fat people suing fast food restaurants 'for making them fat' - comes to mind. There are lot of other examples.
Contrary to what most people believe, the idea of our legal system being filled with legions of frivolous lawsuits is almost entirely imaginary. Most lawyers are shrewd enough to know when they have a case, and they are most often the first line of filtration. Even when some bad ones fail to be ethical, pretrial motions take care of the balance as judges don't like to proceed with a shaky case when more meritorious ones are waiting in the docket.
