Stella Liebeck, a $79-$year$-$old resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico, visited a drive$-$through window of a McDonald$$s restaurant with her grandson Chris. Her grandson, the driver of the vehicle, placed the order for breakfast. When breakfast came at the drive$-$through window, Chris handed a hot cup of coffee to Stella. Chris pulled over so that Stella could put cream and sugar in her coffee. Stella took the lid off the coffee cup that she held in her lap and hot coffee spilled on her, causing third$-$degree burns on her legs, thighs, groin, and buttocks. Stella was driven to the emergency room and was hospitalized for seven days. She required medical treatment and later returned to the hospital to have skin grafts. She suffered permanent scars from the incident.

Stella$$s medical costs were $$11,000.$ Stella asked McDonald$$s to pay her $$20,000$ to settle the case, but McDonald$$s offered only $$800.$ Stella refused this settlement and sued McDonald$$s in court for negligence for selling coffee that was too hot and for failing to warn her of the danger of the hot coffee it served. At trial, McDonald$$s denied that it had been negligent and asserted that Stella$$s own negligence$$opening a hot coffee cup on her lap$$had caused her injuries. The jury heard the following evidence:

McDonald$$s enforces a quality$-$control rule that requires its restaurants and franchises to serve coffee at $180$ to $190$ degrees Fahrenheit.

Third$-$degree burns occur on skin in just $2$ to $5$ seconds when coffee is served at $185$ degrees.

McDonald$$s coffee temperature was $20$ degrees hotter than coffee served by competing restaurant chains.

McDonald$$s coffee temperature was approximately $40$ to $50$ degrees hotter than normal house$-$brewed coffee.

McDonald$$s had received more than $700$ prior complaints of people who had been scalded by McDonald$$s coffee.

McDonald$$s did not place a warning on its coffee cups to alert patrons that the coffee it served was exceptionally hot.

Based on this evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald$$s acted recklessly and awarded Stella $$200,000$ in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by $$40,000$ because of her own negligence, and $$2\mathrm{.}7$ million in punitive damages. The trial court judge reduced the amount of punitive damages to $$480,000,$ which was $3$ times the amount of compensatory damages. McDonald$$s now places a warning on its coffee cups that its coffee is hot. Liebeck v$.$ McDonald$$s Restaurants, P$.$T$.$S$.,$ Inc. $($New Mexico District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, $1994)$

Critical Thinking Legal Questions

Do you think that McDonald$$s properly warned Stella Liebeck of the dangers of drinking McDonald$$s hot coffee? Do you think McDonald$$s acted ethically in offering Stella an $$800$ settlement? Was the award of punitive damages justified in this case? Why or why not?