Medicine Technology 🌱 Environment Space Energy Physics Engineering Social Science Earth Science Science
Science 2010-11-10 3 min read

More Than Hot Coffee: Debunking Myths About Personal Injury Verdicts

Media sensationalism of personal injury case verdicts has lead some people to believe that they will become millionaires if they slip and fall in a supermarket.

November 10, 2010

The Internet is rife with misinformation about outrageous personal injury verdicts that simply never happened. Even mainstream media accounts can sensationalize the results of personal injury cases while leaving out details that make a significant difference.

Because myths about personal injury lawsuits abound, some people think they will become millionaires if they slip and fall in a supermarket. In reality, though, verdict and settlement information found online and in newspapers cannot always be relied upon. This is why it is important for injured people to promptly consult with a personal injury attorney regarding any legal claims and expectations they may have.

The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case

One of the most infamous and misunderstood personal injury lawsuits is the McDonald's hot coffee case. Importantly, more complete information on the case reveals that it was far more reasonable than portrayed by the media and more unique than generally understood by the public.

In 1992, a 79-year-old grandmother bought a cup of coffee in the drive-through of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson, and he pulled over so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. When she placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid, scalding hot coffee spilled out onto her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks.

After a personal injury trial, the jury awarded the grandmother $200,000 in compensatory damages, but the amount was reduced to $160,000 because they found she was 20 percent at fault for the spill. The jury also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages against McDonald's Corporation.

While this verdict shocked many people, evidence produced during the trial demonstrated that McDonald's knew its coffee was too hot and had severely burned people in the past, yet they continued to sell it at scalding temperatures.

McDonald's History of Misconduct

McDonald's admitted during the trial that it had known its coffee temperature was dangerously high for over a decade. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's received over 700 reports of burns from their scalding-hot coffee. According to a Wall Street Journal article, many of the most severe cases were settled, amounting to just more than $500,000.

In addition, a scientist testifying for McDonald's stated that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third-degree burns. Nonetheless, McDonald's' corporate standards required that their coffee be sold at 180 to 190 degrees.

The Purpose of Punitive Damages

The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a company for wrongful behavior and to deter it and others from similar conduct in the future. Therefore, the amount of punitive damages must be large enough to make an actual difference to the company that must pay them.

The jury awarded punitive damages in the coffee case because it found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct. The $2.7 million amount was based on the essential fact that McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales every day. The punitive damages amounted to only two days of McDonald's' coffee sales.

What many people do not know is that the judge announced that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000. Furthermore, each side appealed the verdict, but they reached a confidential settlement before the appeal was heard. Consequently, the true outcome of the case is unknown.

This information shows that the McDonald's hot-coffee case was about more than a woman becoming rich because her coffee was--as most people expect it to be--hot. The case exemplifies how important details are not always communicated, resulting in over-simplification that can leave the wrong impression.

If you have been injured, talk with a personal injury attorney in your area to get more information. Because no two cases are the same, each case must be assessed on an individual basis.

Article provided by Grandy & Martin PA Attorneys at Law
Visit us at www.grandyandmartin.com