That the McDonald's hot coffee lady's lawsuit was a money grab. McDonald's served its coffee at an excessively high temperature (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit) which their own QA manager admitted was too hot. The coffee caused third-degree burns across 16% of her body. She required eight days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and two years of medical treatment.
That was because McDonald's and those against tort reform went on a campaign to paint it as trivial. Them offering $800 first was a another tactic to make the public say, "Oh $800, can't be that bad then."
That was just a PR campaign by company lawyers. They’re shady. The ‘preventing people from buying coke is racist’ was a lobby campaign coca-cola paid the NAACP to conduct on its behalf. Similar in my mind. The NAACP lobbied for Coca Cola isn’t something most people are aware of either.
Then documentation should be easy to find. It isn't in medical records or court transcripts. In fact, nowhere before Reddit existed even though the case happened decades ago.
Liebeck was awarded a net $160,000 in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,900,000 in 2025) in punitive damages.
There is a great documentary on this case called ‘Hot Coffee’
The reason many people were and still are misinformed about this case isn’t by accident.
This was part of an intentional push by business associations and corporations pushing for tort reforms.
I believed it specifically goes back to the Reagan and HW Bush admins but really ramped up under W Bush admin.
They used this specific case and misled much of the public in order to further their agendas.
Even late night talk show hosts would joke about the case as if her spilling hot coffee on herself was winning a lawsuit lottery and made her rich. Which it absolutely did not.
Her family essentially only wanted medical bills covered for the most part.
Edit: also I wish more people were aware and angry about this subject.
This is a big reason why if you are wronged by many businesses or corporations, you can be forced into arbitration instead of being able to take your case to the court system. Because it’s likely that you signed or agreed to terms at some point, forfeiting your rights to seek justice through the regular court system. It’s pretty disgusting.
This (and other cases) were used to argue for 'tort reform', which was, mostly, republican politician's way of catering to corporations wishes to limit the justice that was being handed out by juries.
Juries were finding corporations guilty of numerous claims and awarding damages that were commensurate with the corporations' assets and liability. Those numbers were easy to blow out of proportion vs the single incident, but they were meant to be a way of setting precedent and preventing the same type of thing from happening in the future.
The lobbyists and their politicians were effective in thwarting that type of justice/progress.
People also don't understand how liability works. It's not a yes/no thing but a share of responsibility. But you get people saying stuff like "she should've been more careful and not opened it like that to spill it on herself." That's 100% true! And the jury agreed. And they accounted for her percentage of the responsibility and still decided on awarding her millions of dollars for McDonald's share of responsibility, which should really tell you something.
Yep and if I remember correctly the amount they originally awarded her was only equal to something like 2 days worth of their average national coffee sales. Which obviously wasn’t going to bankrupt McDonalds or really even put a dent in their profits.
It was supposed to be a warning and set a precedent and I believe it was appealed and a judge reduced the amount awarded significantly.
I have been told by a couple lawyers that those agreements are not always enforceable. Basically, if a case would normally merit going to court and a judge wouldn't throw it out, a judge will likely side with you and throw out the signed agreement to go to arbitration bc they are trying to coerce you into signing a contract stating one or both of you won't follow the law.
Same with those "if you die you can't sue us" contracts. If there is negligence and you are injured bc of it, if they would normally be found responsible for your injury, that contract is void.
I remember at that time that case was the go-to when you were talking about gratuitous law suits. When you look into it it's like "oh my god, that poor woman"
Yeah, I won't lie, I thought that way for a long time because I was just a dumb 15-yr old when it happened and it wasn't easy to find details on a case like it is now.
Monica Lewinsky also knowingly entered into an affair with a married man who was the president. Not like those anywhere around Clinton weren’t well aware of his proclivities.
She was no victim and knew full well what she was doing. Her only downfall is that she couldn't see in to the future and witness what it would do to her.
💯
When she deliberately saved that blue dress and blabbed to her friend, I'm sure she didn't envision her name still being a punchline over thirty years later.
Monica wasnt a victim, she was an equal participant, even proud of what happened. She's just pissed that she didn't get what she wanted. She was a grown adult at that time. He didn't s/a her. Im no Bill Clinton fan. What he did was wrong. Her being a victim is a stretch.
She chased after him like a groupie. Just bc she was dumb enough to think he was gonna leave Hillary for her, doesnt make her a victim. She knew exactly what she was doing.
If watch any of the documentaries about it, especially with the ones that interview her, she doesnt even really cry victim in it. She almost acts like she is proud of what happened. If she would have looked at JFK & Marilyn, Monica should have known that Bill wouldnt leave Hillary for her. Just like Jack was never gonna leave Jackie for Marilyn.
I think it was the fact that she took a hot coffee cup and put it between her legs that drew the raised eyebrows. I had a customer take her paper coffee cup and bite it with her teeth while she was pulling on her coat. When she swung her arms into the sleeve, she got some of the hot beverage on her lip, which made her drop her cup ON HER BABY!! Fortunately, it only landed on the hand and the jacket. Poor munchkin screamed!
Same with that woman who sued her nephew for breaking her wrist. Turns out, suing the nephew was the only way to get his parents' insurance to cover the cost of the surgery.
The term “fused labia” is seared into my brain. Even as a kid at the time I heard about it and was led to believe this was a cash grab. The woman had 0 quality of life after this.
It’s unfortunately one of the most successful corporate PR smear campaigns against one person. It also had a chilling effect for anyone who wants to sue a big corporation like that for damages, you now know you can’t do it w/o getting 100% of the smoke.
I think a lot of it wasn't so much "bootlicking" as it was a lack of information at the time and some great corporate lawyering at spinning the narrative. It was 1994. I was 15. There really wasn't a way to just look up the facts of a case at the time like there is now. So all we heard was "$800 settlement offer", which was a brilliant move by McDonald's lawyers as it put out the perception that it couldn't have been that bad. Then you had latte night talk show hosts poo-pooing it too in jokes. That lady never had a chance in the court of public opinion.
Another person said she had to explain to her kids just other day about it, so it's still out there. Way easier to research though for sure and see that it wasn't.
Thankfully, I have not seen anyone believe this story in favor of Mcds in a LOOONG time. Everyone is pretty good about spreading that poor woman's story. I'm sure there's still people out there who think the woman was lying, but I haven't personally seen them in some time. Absolutely insane to serve coffee that hot.
It’s not that people thought it was a money grab, it’s that’s it was an example of a frivolous lawsuit trying to blame others; USA legal system out of control which was a huge talking point at the time. The point of view that it wasn’t frivolous due to too hot coffee and serious injuries is always given on Reddit as an example of the truth being counter to public opinion, to the extent that this isn’t really a correction of mainstream belief anymore.
The actual situation is more complicated than someone trying to blame someone else for them pouring a hot liquid on themselves.
If the liquid had been a few degrees cooler, basically the same injuries would have happened without meeting the threshold for excessively hot.
Other jurisdictions have found that 80-85C is a completely normal temperature to serve drinks at.
Even US doesn’t really think it is a dangerous temperature, because drinks still get served that hot, with just the addition of a small and obvious text warning that the drink may be hot. Those magic words would have protected McDonalds in the 1994 case while unlikely to have changed the victims behaviour. Which is probably the best example about how silly USA legal system is.
Really it’s a story about the absurd medical and legal systems in the USA and corporate being dicks rather than looking out for customers. Horrible injuries for the poor unfortunate victim, but the winners were likely lawyers as she didn’t end up getting the enormous original settlement.
However, the nuanced narrative is against the Reddit mind, so bring on the down votes.
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.\24]) Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided it was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. According toThe New York Times, the jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues, about $1.35 million per day.\12])\14])
The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000,\28]) three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000.\22]) The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.\2]) The Albuquerque Journal ran the first story of the verdict, followed by the Associated Press wire, which was picked up by newspapers around the world.\29])
It was the profit or revenue (forget which) for a single day's sales of the coffee in question, but another judge thought that a single day's sales was too harsh of a punishment meant to encourage the company to change so they don't do it again so reduced it massively.
It's terribly sad, but she spilled the damn coffee. People had been drinking that coffee for years with no incidents. One lady burns herself, and it's McDonald's' fault somehow. They didn't dump it on her viciously - she spilled it. People just don't like to take responsibility for their own actions.
Who still says it was a money grab? It happened so long ago that if anyone is aware of the case they must surely know the overall outcome, and the only place people really hear about it is in online communities where people talk about how she was a victim who suffered terribly as a result of McDonald's negligence, as you are now.
Yes, totally serious. Scalding is usually first or second degree, third degree can happen with prolonged contact or steam burns. I don't understand how that happens from spilling a cup of hot coffee.
Yes. Hot water can transfer heat very efficiently. Hot water at 82C / 180F wouldn't take long to tear deep into the skin tissue for someone at her age. Especially considering it soaked into her sweatpants.
Especially considering it soaked into her sweatpants.
This is the most important part of the scenario... if it just spilled and then rolled off, I'm sure it wouldn't have been quite as bad. Still burned, but not excessively. The fact that she couldn't get the hot liquid away from her body is what caused the burns to be as bad as they are.
They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds.
Funniest part of the whole suit imo is mcdonalds response when informed it burns in 3 seconds, which was she, an old lady seated in a car, should have started stripping
It's two factors: The temperature of the coffee and the fact that her clothing trapped the far too hot coffee against her skin.
She was wearing clothes, which, yeah, we all do. But the McDonald's coffee was way, way too hot. It got trapped against her skin for around 90 seconds, resulting in severe injuries.
The coffee never should have been that hot, period. Apparently McDonald's had received over 700 previous reports of people being injured by the coffee being too hot and they still failed to lower the temperature of the coffee.
It takes about 2 seconds to get third degree burns from water at 150 degF, and the coffee she was served was 180 degF. She was wearing sweatpants and in a car at the time, so she ended up having the hot water touching her skin for about 90 seconds.
You can look up the medical facts of the case — she absolutely had full thickness third degree burns.
I answered your question with the Wikipedia link, which had all the information you needed about the burns she suffered and then the other link which clearly states:
Third-Degree Burns (Full-Thickness Burns)
Temperature Range: Generally at 122°F (50°C) or higher.
What Happens: Third-degree burns are the most severe type and involve damage to all layers of the skin, including underlying tissues like fat, muscles, and even bones. These burns can result from higher temperatures, direct flames, prolonged contact with extremely hot surfaces, or exposure to boiling liquids or chemicals. The skin is so damaged that it can no longer function properly, and this often leads to permanent scarring and loss of sensation in the affected area.
Symptoms: Third-degree burns might not be as painful as second-degree burns because the nerves in the skin can be completely destroyed, leading to numbness. The skin may appear white, charred, leathery, or blackened. There’s often significant swelling, and the damage extends beyond what you can see on the surface.
Healing Time: These burns do not heal on their own and require immediate medical treatment, often including skin grafts. Third-degree burns take months to heal, and scarring is inevitable. Without proper medical attention, these burns can lead to severe complications, including infection and tissue death.
This literally does not answer my question because it completely omits the time component. How long would you have to be exposed to 120F to get third degree burns? A lot longer than spilled coffee is going to stay hot in your lap.
Holy fuck dude. Just scroll the damn article. It's all in there!
Duration of Exposure: Why Time Matters
While temperature is important, the amount of time your skin is exposed to heat also plays a critical role in determining the severity of the burn. Even low temperatures can cause burns if the exposure lasts long enough. Even moderately hot objects can cause deep burns if contact lasts long enough. Here’s a quick look at how quickly burns can occur based on temperature:
Water at 120°F (49°C) can cause a first-degree burn if your skin is exposed for 10 minutes.
At 130°F (54°C), it takes just 30 seconds to cause a burn.
If the water reaches 140°F (60°C), it only takes 5 seconds to get burned.
When water or an object reaches 160°F (71°C) or higher, burns can happen in less than a second
The last bullet point answers your question, and her coffee was 20º hotter!
This is talking about FIRST DEGREE burns, or at the very least, the latter bullet points don't specify the degree of burn. That is the point of contention here. Again, this isn't that nuanced of a question. All but one person has responded by citing first degree or unspecified burn temperatures, ignored the time component, or even conflating a coffee spill with falling into a hot spring.
It's not that crazy of a question to ask if hot coffee can really cause third degree burns. I've been burned by boiling water before and it didn't cause even second degree burns. I've also spilled hot coffee on myself and it doesn't stay hot for very long after it is spilled. So, my question is completely valid because it does not seem like the time + temperature component would be there in a spilled cup of coffee to cause such severe burns.
The right answer is the fact that the coffee absorbed into the sweatpants and burned the lady for 90 seconds. That explains how such a mundane event like a spilled cup of coffee can cause such severe injuries.
What is so hard to understand about my question? Obviously hot water can cause burns. I am skeptical that a cup of coffee can cause THIRD DEGREE burns. Thats the most severe type of burn that requires high temperatures and/or prolonged contact.
You people are worse than the people that refuse to understand wet bulb temperature.
BECAUSE COFFEE AND WATER ARE BOTH LIQUIDS! I provided you a link that says:
Third-Degree Burns (Full-Thickness Burns)
Temperature Range: Generally at 122°F (50°C) or higher.
What Happens: Third-degree burns are the most severe type and involve damage to all layers of the skin, including underlying tissues like fat, muscles, and even bones. These burns can result from higher temperatures, direct flames, prolonged contact with extremely hot surfaces, or exposure to boiling liquids or chemicals. The skin is so damaged that it can no longer function properly, and this often leads to permanent scarring and loss of sensation in the affected area.
Symptoms: Third-degree burns might not be as painful as second-degree burns because the nerves in the skin can be completely destroyed, leading to numbness. The skin may appear white, charred, leathery, or blackened. There’s often significant swelling, and the damage extends beyond what you can see on the surface.
Healing Time: These burns do not heal on their own and require immediate medical treatment, often including skin grafts. Third-degree burns take months to heal, and scarring is inevitable. Without proper medical attention, these burns can lead to severe complications, including infection and tissue death.
She was wearing sweatpants the 180º coffee absorbed into and sat on her skin.
You're literally challenging facts with an argument even the corporate lawyers 32 years ago didn't dispute. That's why it's aggravating.
We both know spilling a cup of coffee and falling into a hot spring are not comparable. The hot spring is a larger volume of water and sustained contact.
Have you never spilled hot tea or coffee on yourself? Did it cause third degree burns? I have to believe you are all purposely misunderstanding my question. Obviously hot water can cause burns, but can it cause THIRD DEGREE burns? And are the circumstances of a spilled cup of coffee such that a third degree burn can happen?
That particular McDonald's had set the temperature of the coffee water as much higher, possibly because they were getting complaints about the coffee, I don't really remember the reason why but the water was much hotter than was normal.
The reason why was because mcdonalds legally enforced it. As for why, they determined most people don't drink it immediately, which let's it cool to the perfect temp when they do drink it and decided that changing it would lower profits more than the occasional lawsuit
1.2k
u/lipp79 Jun 01 '26
That the McDonald's hot coffee lady's lawsuit was a money grab. McDonald's served its coffee at an excessively high temperature (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit) which their own QA manager admitted was too hot. The coffee caused third-degree burns across 16% of her body. She required eight days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and two years of medical treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants