Liebeck v. McDonald's is one of the most culturally pervasive tort claim cases in U.S. history. Known to many as the "hot coffee lawsuit," Liebeck v. McDonald's is one subject of a new documentary recently aired on HBO. Hot Coffee, directed by Susan Saladoff, explores the realities of the case, and how public misperceptions have facilitated the passage of tort reform legislation that denies justice to injured individuals.
Liebeck v. McDonald's as Ammunition
A "tort" is a wrongful act that involves a breach of a civil duty. Those harmed by such a breach are entitled to compensation for their resulting injuries and losses.
In 1992, when Stella Liebeck suffered gruesome third degree burns from a spilled cup of McDonald's coffee, many members of the public were outraged to hear a jury awarded nearly $3 million dollars at the conclusion of her tort lawsuit two years later.
What most are not aware of is that Ms. Liebeck was not driving with the coffee, was not a greedy plaintiff looking for a payday (she waited to file suit and originally asked that McDonald's only pay her medical bills-they refused), and 90 percent of the damages awarded were not compensatory, but were meant to punish reprehensible and reckless conduct by McDonald's The punitive damages represented the monetary equivalent of about two days of McDonald's coffee sales, and were actually significantly reduced by the trial judge before a confidential settlement agreement was reached between McDonald's and Ms. Liebeck.
However, as documented in Hot Coffee, jokes and opinions circulated the airwaves, and the truth behind Ms. Liebeck's ordeal was lost. Instead, big businesses latched onto the story of a plaintiff looking to cash in on the lawsuit "lottery." With this informational capital, business interests began to shepherd tort reform initiatives into law across the country.
Deterring Corporate Misconduct, Compensating Those Harmed
So-called "tort reform" laws limit a company's liability for providing defective products or operating in a negligent manner. Under such laws, damages may be capped, certain suits may be prohibited, or contract clauses that unilaterally bar civil lawsuits may be given operative effect.
However, when corporations are allowed to dodge full legal liability for their actions, those injured as a result bear the costs. Furthermore, placing artificial obstacles in the path of legitimate lawsuits disincentivizes corporate responsibility.
Before making up your mind about tort reform, you should absorb information from sources like the Hot Coffee documentary that help counter widely disseminated tort reform misinformation. While quashing frivolous lawsuits sounds appealing on the surface, digging deeper reveals that tort reform laws come at the expense of real people with real injuries.
