McDonalds’ Coffee- Can you Handle the Truth?
November 12, 2008
Everytime someone wants to talk about changing our tort system, they mention the infamous “McDonalds’ Coffee Case” as evidence that the jury system is out of control. In order to boil (sorry) the facts down to a thirty second sound bite, many of the facts get omitted. This misinformation campaign by insurance companies and others isn’t designed to make coffee better. It is really focused on making citizens (who will eventually be jurors) believe all injury claims are frauds. And when jurors believe that, no injury victim can get a fair trial, which means they can’t get adequate settlements, either.
My friends at the Center for Justice and Democracy collected the data on the McDonalds’ coffee lawsuit. Let me know if it changes what you thought about the case!
THE “MCDONALD’S COFFEE CASE” AND OTHER FICTIONS
Anecdotal descriptions of a few atypical lawsuits intended to shock or amuse the public have been the cornerstone of the business community’s anti-jury advertising and public relations campaign since the 1980s. Focusing on a few rare, anecdotal cases, instead of the majority of cases that pass through the courts each year, feeds into a false and dangerous perception that the system is overflowing with frivolous lawsuits. Often such verdicts have either been thrown out or substantially reduced by trial judges or appellate courts, which is exactly how the system is supposed to work. Yet the public is given the false impression that a plaintiff received a windfall, a defendant was financially ruined, or the system failed. This is particularly irresponsible when, as is typical, cases are not cited by name or even by date so they can be checked for accuracy. When journalists or researchers do track them down, they find in virtually every situation that such cases have been misreported and misused.
The “McDonald’s coffee” case.
We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald’s coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald’s revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:
By corporate specifications, McDonald’s sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
Witnesses for McDonald’s admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s required temperature;
McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald’s witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat — As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we’re using in that regard right now;”
McDonald’s admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald’s in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.
Irresponsible use of anecdotal cases by “tort reform” proponents is nothing new.
The case of Charles Bigbee was the “McDonald’s coffee case” of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan described Bigbee’s case in a 1986 speech as follows: “In California, a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of his car, and crashed into a phone booth. Now, it’s no surprise that the injured man sued. But you might be startled to hear whom he sued: the telephone company and associated firms!” In fact, Bigbee’s leg was severed after a car hit the phone booth in which he had been trapped. The door jammed after he saw the car coming ‚ he tried to flee but could not. The accident left him unable to walk, severely depressed and unable to work. Because the phone company had placed the booth near a known hazardous intersection, and because the door was defective, keeping him trapped inside, he sued the phone company for compensation. Bigbee was brought to Congress to testify. He said, “I believe it would be very helpful if I could talk briefly about my case and show how it has been distorted not only by the President, but by the media as well. That is probably the best way to show that people who are injured due to the fault of others should be justly compensated for the damages they have to live with the rest of their lives.” House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, July 23, 1986. Charles Bigbee died in 1994 at age 52. Nader, Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America (1996).
Hypocrites of Tort Reform- Long Version!
October 6, 2008
The Hypocrites Of Tort Reform Advocates Who Changed Their Tunes
Emily Gottlieb
Deputy director of the Center for Justice & Democracy.
No one likes a hypocrite. Yet one would be hard pressed to find more hypocrites than in the “tort reform” movement. Take a look at the record of a host of lawmakers, lobbyists and even journalists who complain about lawsuits and argue that the rights of injured consumers to go to court should be scaled back because we are too “litigious.”
When they or family members are hurt and need compensation for their own injuries, often minor ones, these same individuals do not hesitate to use the courts to obtain compensation, to right a wrong, to hold a wrongdoer accountable or to obtain justice. The same is true for corporations that have funded the “tort reform” movement. These companies support efforts to immunize themselves from liability for harming consumers. But when these same companies believe they have been wronged by a business competitor, they are the first to sue.
In this report we take a look at the cases of several proponents of tort restrictions who do not “practice what they preach.” We examine individuals who have sued sometimes for millions of dollars while at the same time championing damage caps and other severe liability restrictions for others. We also look at corporate litigants who have lent financial or other support to groups like the American Tort Reform Association, the Manhattan Institute and state business coalitions like New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform.
Notably, tort restrictions advocated by these organizations virtually never limit the rights of corporations to sue business competitors for commercial losses. This list is by no means exhaustive but merely representative of businesses and other “tort reformers” who say one thing but do another when it comes to the civil justice system.
George W. Bush
As Texas Governor, George W. Bush was one of the “tort reform” movement’s biggest proponents. One of Bush’s first acts as governor in 1995 was to meet with representatives of nine Texas Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) chapters in a salsa factory outside of Austin, after which he declared a legislative “emergency” on “frivolous lawsuits.” Over his two terms, Bush signed a series of brutal bills that severely reduced injured consumers’ rights to go to court.
However, when it comes to solving problems involving his own family, Bush heads straight to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor fender-bender involving one of his daughters in which no one was hurt. Although his insurance would have covered the repair costs, making a lawsuit unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone with a suspended license. In this case, Bush seemed to understand one of the most important functions of civil lawsuits — to deter further wrongdoing. The case settled for $2,000 to $2,500.
U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
As a United States Senator, Rick Santorum has repeatedly supported limits on consumers’ rights to seek compensation in the courts. In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, “We have a much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be designed to do.”
But the same rhetoric does not seem to apply to Senator Santorum. In December 1999 Santorum supported his wife’s medical malpractice lawsuit against her chiropractor for $500,000. At trial, the Senator testified that his wife should be compensated for the pain and suffering caused by a botched spine adjustment, claiming that she had to “treat her back gingerly” and could no longer accompany him on the campaign trail. After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what impact the case had on his views of “tort reform.” According to his spokesman Robert Traynham, “Senator Santorum is of the belief that the verdict decided upon by the jury during last week’s court case of his wife is strictly a private matter. The legislative positions that Senator Santorum has taken on tort reform and health care have been consistent with the case involving Mrs. Santorum.” In January 2000, a judge set aside the $350,000 verdict, deeming it excessive, and offered a reduced award of $175,000 or a new trial on damages only.
“Lawsuit Abuse” Group Founder and Trustee, Sterling Cornelius
Sterling Cornelius, owner of Cornelius Nurseries and Turkey Creek Farms in Houston and a trustee of the corporate front-group, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), is one of the most vocal businessmen complaining about lawsuits and advocating tort restrictions in Texas. With the help and support of the Texas CALA group, Texas enacted a series of “tort reforms” in 1995, including caps on punitive damages and severe restrictions on lawsuits filed under Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
But in 1993, Sterling filed a $100 million lawsuit against DuPont, claiming that its fungicide, Benlate, damaged his companies’ crop and nursery. Among the damages Cornelius sought were $75.3 million in punitive damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act as well as additional punitive damages. Because his lawsuit was filed before enactment of the 1995 legislation, his lawsuit was not affected by the “tort reforms” that passed.
Florida State Representative Mark Flanagan
As a member of the House Civil Justice and Claims Committee, Mark Flanagan was a major force behind severe tort restrictions that were enacted in Florida in 1999, sponsoring and co-sponsoring bills that protect manufacturers of defective products, while calling Florida “the most litigious society in the world.”
But it was a different story when his own daughter fell from a daycare center’s jungle gym and broke her leg in 1995. Flanagan sued both the day care center and the manufacturer of the jungle gym, alleging that the manufacturer “negligently and carelessly designed” the apparatus and that the preschool failed to properly supervise his daughter. Like many injured victims whose rights Flanagan’s legislation decimates, the lawsuit alleged that his daughter suffered from “severe pain” and “lost the capacity to enjoy life.” After 18 months of litigation — and two months before his bid for re-election — Flanagan settled for an undisclosed amount.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform Board Members
In April 1995, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) helped lobby for legislation that capped punitive damages, limited governmental and professional liability, undermined joint and several liability and decimated Texas’ Deceptive Claims Practices Act.
Yet at the time this legislation passed, TLR Board members Leo Linbeck, Richard Trabulsi and Richard Weekley had themselves filed over 60 lawsuits either personally or as business owners. Between 1978 and 1995, Leo Linbeck’s construction company was the plaintiff in at least 37 lawsuits. In one suit, which was settled confidentially, his company sued its own insurance company for triple damages stemming from the deaths of three workers in a construction accident. In another case, settled in November 1988, Linbeck sued for punitive damages.
By 1995, Board member Richard Trabulsi had also filed suit numerous times. In 1986, as the owner of Richard’s Liquor and Fine Wines, Trabulsi sued Walgreen’s to force it to stop selling alcohol in Texas. He also filed a personal-injury suit against his company in which the company prevailed. He told the Houston Post, “I have had access to the courts a number of times I had forgotten.” As of 1995, TLR President and co-founder Richard Weekley, head of Weekley Properties and Weekley Development and a partner of David Weekley Homes, had sued six times; his companies had sued 14 times.
West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely
In January 1994, West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely testified before the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee as it considered bills designed to abolish the state’s tort system. Appearing as a paid spokesman for the corporate front-group, New Jersey Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Neely attacked every player in the civil justice system, from lawyers to judges to injured victims who sue.
Those pronouncements were surprising given Neely’s personal history with the civil justice system. In 1986, he reportedly sued TWA because his bags arrived 70 minutes late. He demanded $38,000, $3,000 of which was a “speaker’s fee” for telling other passengers about the delay. Three years later, the case settled for $12,500. In 1993, Neely sued Goodyear Tire after a wheel fell off his father’s Cadillac. He sought $49,000 that included $2,000 for himself for five-hours worth of telephone calls to his parents. As Neely testified before the New Jersey Senate, the case was dismissed.
Corporate Hypocrates
The following corporations have funded or are members of either national or state organizations that advocate “tort reform.” Tort reforms are always aimed at curbing litigation by sick and injured consumers against corporations, hospitals and other wrongdoers. Such “reforms” rarely affect “business-to-business” litigation, leaving corporations with unfettered use of the courts to obtain compensation for their commercial losses from trademark infringements, breach of contract, patent infringements, unfair completion or a host of other commercial claims. Sometimes the targets of their lawsuits are much smaller businesses or even consumers. The following are a few examples:
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
In 1998, Enterprise Rent-A-Car began litigation against Rent-A-Wreck — a company 25 times smaller than Enterprise — over Enterprise’s trademarked phrase, “We’ll Pick You Up.” Rent-A-Wreck had used radio ads that contained the phrase “And of course, they’ll pick you up.” Later, after a purported settlement between the companies, Enterprise tried to stop Rent-A-Wreck from obtaining a trademark for the phrase, “We’ll Give You A Lift.” In 2000, Enterprise sued Rent-A-Wreck for civil contempt for using “We’ll Give You a Lift.” The contempt motion was dismissed.
Exxon Corporation
Major corporations like Exxon support laws to limit the ability of average consumers to sue their insurance companies when those companies unfairly deny claims. But when Lloyds of London refused to pay Exxon $250 million for losses it suffered as a cargo owner resulting from the Valdez oil spill in Alaska, Exxon did what all consumers should have the right to do. Exxon sued its insurance company. In this case, Exxon won.
Exxon has used the courts for other purposes well. For example, in August 1998, Exxon sued Mobil Oil Corp. for patent infringement involving a catalyst that makes better plastics. A jury awarded Exxon $171 million and a judge issued an order prohibiting Mobil from infringing on Exxon’s patent.
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson, makers of Mylanta in partnership with Merck, sued Smithkline Beecham Corporation for false advertising regarding the nutritional benefit of Tums over Mylanta. The court dismissed Johnson & Johnson’s complaint. The lower court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
In 1995, Johnson & Johnson/Merck filed another false advertising suit against SmithKline over claims that Tums and Tagamet HB were superior to Pepcid AC. The court issued a preliminary injunction, ordering SmithKline to suspend the ads. In 1999, Johnson & Johnson sued Bausch & Lomb for making claims about the superiority of its extended wear contact lenses.
————————————————————————-
Conclusion
In 1975, Indiana lobbyist Frank Cornelius, whose clients included the Insurance Institute of Indiana, helped secure passage of a $500,000 cap on medical malpractice awards and elimination of all damages for pain and suffering in Indiana. As he wrote in the New York Times on October 7, 1994, he now “rue[s] that accomplishment.” Beginning in 1989, Frank Cornelius experienced a series of medical catastrophes that resulted in his wheelchair confinement, respirator-assisted breathing and constant physical pain.
When he turned to the Indiana courts to provide a remedy, to compensate him for his massive injuries and hold the negligent health care providers accountable, the law was no longer there for him. The Indiana legislature had taken his rights away. Though his medical expenses and lost wages amounted to over $5 million, his claims against both the hospital and physical therapist at fault settled for a mere $500,000 — the limit on damages for a single incident of malpractice.
In some ways, the hypocrites of “tort reform” are an amusing list. But tragedy for them lurks just around the corner, just like it did for Frank Cornelius.