When a company provides a product to the general public, it is responsible for the safety of the people who use it. Consumers trust that the product will not pose a threat when used reasonably and in accordance with any warnings provided.
Unfortunately, companies sometimes fail in this responsibility. In some cases, businesses are aware of potential dangers yet choose not to take precautionary steps because doing so would cost them money. When this happens, those harmed by a company’s negligence have the right to seek justice.
One of the most well-known product liability cases in history is the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants). You don’t have to be a product liability attorney in Hamilton, Ohio to have heard about this famous case. However, like so many people, you might not know the true story behind what happened.
Today, let’s dig through the myths and rumors and learn what really took place before, during, and after the famed McDonald’s coffee lawsuit.
The Common Misunderstanding of the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit
The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit is frequently cited as an example of a “frivolous lawsuit.” The general retelling of the case suggests that an elderly woman spilled coffee on herself while driving a car she was probably too old to operate. She then sued McDonald’s for millions, despite it being her own fault.
And because of this, modern fast food restaurants have to warn people that they’re hot coffee is “hot”.
But is that really what happened? Not at all. The truth is far more compelling than you have been led to believe, and it reveals how corporations often ignore public concerns and prioritize profits over consumer safety.
The Real Story of the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit
On February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Contrary to popular belief, Stella was not driving. She was in the passenger seat while her grandson was at the wheel.
After receiving their order, her grandson pulled into a parking space so that Stella could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Because the car did not have cupholders, she placed the cup between her knees to steady it while removing the lid. As she did so, the coffee spilled onto her lap, soaking into her sweatpants and causing immediate, severe burns.
The injuries Stella suffered were far worse than most people realize. The coffee was so hot (about 190 degrees Fahrenheit) that it caused third-degree burns on 6 percent of her body including her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Third-degree burns destroy both the outer and inner layers of skin, often requiring painful skin grafts to heal.
Stella was hospitalized for eight days, underwent multiple skin graft procedures, and required two years of additional medical treatment. Initially, doctors feared that she might not survive the injuries due to the severity combined with her age.
While Stella managed to pull through, she was left permanently disfigured, and she was partially disabled for years.
Why Did the Lawsuit Actually Cover?
Stella’s initial request was modest. She simply asked McDonald’s to pay $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost wages. McDonald’s refused and countered with a mere $800. Faced with mounting medical bills, she was left with no choice but to file a lawsuit.
During the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, Stella’s attorneys discovered a number of shocking facts:
- McDonald’s knew their coffee was dangerously hot. Internal documents revealed that McDonald’s required its coffee to be served at 185-190°F, significantly hotter than what is safe for human consumption. For comparison, most home-brewed coffee is served at 135-160°F. At 190°F, a liquid can cause third-degree burns in just 2-7 seconds.
- McDonald’s had been warned before. Over 700 people had suffered burns from McDonald’s coffee prior to Stella’s case. Despite knowing this, McDonald’s took no action to reduce the coffee’s temperature or improve its safety measures.
- McDonald’s admitted its coffee was dangerous. While in court, a McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that the company knew the risks but did not plan to lower the temperature because it prioritized keeping coffee “fresh” for longer.
The Jury’s Verdict and the Final Settlement
After hearing the evidence, the jury awarded Stella:
- $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was later reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be 20 percent at fault for the initial spill.
- $2.7 million in punitive damages, representing two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee sales—a figure intended to punish McDonald’s for its reckless behavior.
While that sounds like more than enough money to address Stella’s needs, the judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Ultimately, Stella settled with McDonald’s for an undisclosed amount, though it’s believed to be less than $600,000 total. This is a far cry from the exaggerated “millions” that critics often claim she received.
The Impact and Aftermath of the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit
The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was more than just a courtroom battle; it had lasting effects on McDonald’s, the restaurant industry, product liability law, and even the life of Stella Liebeck herself. Despite the corporate spin that turned her case into the poster child for so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” the impact of this case reshaped the conversation around corporate responsibility and consumer safety.
How the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit Affected McDonald’s
In the wake of the lawsuit, McDonald’s made significant changes to its coffee policies, despite initially claiming that it would not alter its practices. Investigations found that some McDonald’s locations had lowered the temperature of their coffee from 190°F to around 158°F, a crucial adjustment that reduced the risk of third-degree burns while still serving coffee hot enough for consumer preferences.
Beyond temperature changes, McDonald’s also:
- Improved packaging with more secure lids, sturdier cups, and better insulation to prevent accidental spills.
- Added prominent warning labels on cups and packaging, making it clear that hot beverages could cause burns.
- Trained employees on safe handling procedures and how to prevent coffee-related injuries.
Even though McDonald’s downplayed the lawsuit publicly, the company clearly recognized the potential damage of continued legal action and quietly adjusted its practices to avoid similar situations in the future.
Today, nearly all major coffee chains and fast-food restaurants include “Caution: Hot Beverage” labels on their cups, largely because of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants.
The Impact on Product Liability Cases
The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit set an important precedent in product liability law. It demonstrated that companies can be held accountable when their products pose an unreasonable danger to consumers, even if those consumers are expected to use the product with care.
This case underscored the importance of proving negligence in product liability lawsuits. The fact that McDonald’s ignored over 700 previous complaints about scalding-hot coffee helped Liebeck’s attorneys establish that the company was aware of the risk but chose profits over consumer safety.
Following the case, courts began to take consumer safety complaints more seriously, especially when companies were shown to have ignored prior warnings. Though it took years to undo the negative PR surrounding Liebeck’s case, it ultimately helped debunk the myth that all personal injury lawsuits are frivolous.
The Personal Cost: The Rest of Stella Liebeck’s Life
Despite winning the lawsuit, Stella Liebeck’s life was never the same.
- She never fully recovered from her injuries, living with pain and permanent scarring from the third-degree burns she suffered.
- Much of her settlement money went toward medical expenses and ongoing care, leaving her with very little once the bills were paid for and the dust settled.
- She endured years of public ridicule, with late-night talk shows, news outlets, and corporate-funded campaigns mocking her case. Many people believed the false narrative that she was greedy and potentially faked the incident. In truth, the incident was much worse than people realized, she was a victim of corporate negligence.
- Stella and her family spent years trying to correct misinformation about her case, though much of the damage had already been done.
In her later years, Stella remained an advocate for consumer safety. Her case served as an important lesson about corporate accountability, even though the general public largely misunderstood the details. She passed away in 2004 at the age of 91, long after her case had been twisted into a pop-culture punchline.
Why the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit Still Matters
The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was not about someone looking for an easy payday, it was about holding a corporation accountable for endangering consumers. If McDonald’s had simply lowered the temperature of its coffee, hundreds of people (including Stella) could have avoided serious injury.
Despite the clear facts, McDonald’s and other corporate interests worked hard to spin the case as an example of “lawsuit abuse.” They launched a public relations campaign to paint Stella as greedy and irresponsible, making her the subject of late-night talk show jokes and media ridicule.
However, a post-trial investigation found that McDonald’s did lower its coffee temperature in many locations after the case. This change not only prevented countless future injuries, but also proved that Stella’s case was legitimate.
Corporate Negligence and Consumer Rights
The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit serves as a powerful reminder of why product liability laws exist. When corporations prioritize profits over safety, consumers pay the price.
There are countless other examples of companies disregarding safety concerns, including:
- Defective car parts leading to deadly crashes
- Dangerous pharmaceuticals with undisclosed side effects
- Household products containing harmful chemicals
In many cases, corporations are well-aware of these risks but choose cost-benefit analyses of the price of a recall, for instance, only taking action after a lawsuit forces them to. Even then, they have teams of lawyers ready to defund their interests and reduce/prevent payouts. This is why personal injury attorneys play a crucial role in protecting consumers.
What to Do If You’re Injured by a Defective Product
If you or a loved one has been harmed by a dangerous product, here’s what you should do:
- Seek medical attention immediately. Your health is the top priority.
- Document everything. Take photos of your injuries and the defective product.
- Save all medical records and receipts. These will be crucial for your case.
- Do not speak to insurance companies without legal representation. They may try to minimize or deny your claim.
- Contact an experienced personal injury attorney. A lawyer can help you fight for fair compensation and hold the responsible company accountable.
The Richards Firm: Fighting for Justice in Ohio and Kentucky
At The Richards Firm, we understand how overwhelming it can be to take legal action against a powerful company. We believe that every individual deserves justice, no matter how big the opponent.
If you have been injured due to a defective product, corporate negligence, or unsafe conditions, we are here to help. Our firm serves clients in Hamilton, Greater Cincinnati, and Northern Kentucky, providing compassionate, aggressive legal representation. With The Richards Firm, you will always be treated as an individual person with individual needs and goals.
Contact us today for a free consultation. We will fight to make sure your voice is heard, and your rights are protected. We can be reached at 513-461-0084.