Maryland Injury and Disability Law : Washington DC Metro Injury & Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Greenberg & Bederman : Accidents, Falls, Medical Malpractice : Maryland, DC, Virginia

This is a much more severe injury than one might expect from a coffee spill, and rightfully so. The reason that Ms. Liebeck was so badly burned is because McDonald’s had a policy of serving its coffee at temperatures of 180- to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, a temperature hot enough to scald human flesh. Normally, coffee is served at approximately 130- 140 degrees. In fact, liquids at temperatures of 140 degrees and above pose a danger of causing burns to the skin if spilled. McDonald’s was also aware that the coffee it was serving was dangerously hot, because they had received over 700 similar complaints in the past due to injuries from the dangerously hot beverage. Many of these claims involved third-degree burn injuries similar to those sustained by Ms. Liebeck.

In spite of her injuries Ms. Liebeck did not even want to bring her case to trial. She wanted to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However McDonald’s offered her only $800 and therefore the case went to trial. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The version of the ‘coffee case’ with which many of us are familiar insinuates that Ms. Liebeck received such a windfall from this case. But Ms. Liebeck did not make off with a fortune in spite of her injuries. The compensatory damages were reduced by 20% because the jury found that although 80% of the fault for the accident could be attributed to McDonald’s, but 20% of the fault could be attributed to Ms. Liebeck. Additionally the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 or three times the amount of the compensatory damages. Yet, even after the case the parties entered into a secret settlement, so the public is unlikely to ever know exactly how much Ms. Liebeck received.

The actual version of this case stands in stark contrast to the popularly propagated version. Not only did Ms. Liebeck suffer serious injuries, but McDonald’s was fully aware that the temperature at which it served its coffee was scalding hot. In fact, after this case the McDonald’s at which Ms. Liebeck’s injuries occurred stopped serving coffee at such a hot temperature and now serves its coffee at about 150- 160 degrees. This case also serves as a lesson and a reminder about personal injury lawsuits. The trial judge in this case even categorized the actions of McDonald’s as reckless, callous, and willful. Although the initial premise of such a suit may seem to fly in the face of common sense, everyday people are injured under ordinary and seemingly innocent circumstances. In fact these are the circumstances under which great deals of injury cases occur. No one ever expects to be injured, and no one should have to live their life expecting the worst at any moment. If you or a family member believes that you have a personal injury case, please contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free legal consultation.
 

To learn more about our maryland personal injury lawyers, please read about Andrew Bederman, Roger Greenberg, John Sellinger, or Jason Fernandez, or contact Greenberg & Bederman for a free case review..

Back to punitive. Punitive means to punish. The purpose of punitive damages is two fold: to deter wrongful conduct by others (usually manufacturers) and to serve as a normative function of expressing shock or outrage at the defendant’s actions. Punitive damages are to punish an offender for intentional or malicious conduct and to deter similar future conduct. While punitive damage awards are infrequent, their frequency and size have grown in recent years, hence the tort reform political debate. They are routinely asked for in civil lawsuits presently. The difficulty of predicting whether punitive damages will be awarded by a jury at trial, and the current trend toward large amounts when they are awarded, have also contributed to inconsistent outcomes in similar cases.

To defend tort litigation, the costs can get expensive quickly. Organizations advocating tort reform, such as American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), claim that such costs cause all of us to pay more in indirect costs, such as higher health insurance premiums, and a higher price of goods. Tort reform has been hotly debated in Congress, the national media, and in academia, with advocates claiming we are in a tort crisis disagreeing with those who think tort crisis is a myth. According to Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, 2003, the expenditures on the tort system are substantial, about $250 billion a year, and some estimates suggest that indirect costs through “defensive medicine” and other responses to the threat of lawsuits are even more costly.

So, what is tort reform? It’s a group of ideas and proposed and some enacted (Caps on awards for instance) laws designed to changed the way our civil law works. Tort reform laws are designed to limit the circumstances in which the injured party may sue, and how much money to award to cases. If you think that tort reform will help, just look at New Zealand. In 1972 New Zealand introduced the first universal no-fault scheme for all accident victims. This is based on the principle that anyone suffering personal injury, regardless of whether they can point to a negligent party who caused their loss, may receive state benefits from the government run Accident Compensation Corporation. The goal is to achieve full equality in compensation, while reducing costs by removing the process from courts where litigation is hugely expensive. In the 1970s Australia and the United Kingdom drew up similar proposals for similar no-fault schemes. But the efforts and recommendations amounted to little, and with changes of government the reform agenda were abandoned.

Next Tort reform article: The specific ways of applying tort limitations. Stay tuned.

To learn more about personal injury law issues, please click personal injury . To learn about our personal injury lawyer in Maryland, please click personal injury lawyer.