In Liebeck v. McDonald’s, a New Mexico jury found the restaurant chain liable in 1994 after 79-year-old Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns from coffee served between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. She had asked the company for roughly $20,000 to cover her medical bills; McDonald’s offered $800. At trial, evidence showed the company had received more than 700 prior burn complaints and chose not to lower the temperature. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced to $160,000 for her share of fault) and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge cut to $480,000 before the parties reached a confidential settlement.
What Happened at the Drive-Thru
On February 27, 1992, Liebeck was a passenger in a 1989 Ford Probe driven by her grandson through a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After they received the order, her grandson pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and sugar. The car was not moving. Liebeck placed the Styrofoam cup between her knees to steady it while she pried off the lid. The cup tipped, and the entire contents poured into her lap. Her cotton sweatpants soaked up the coffee and pinned it against her skin.
McDonald’s quality-control manuals at the time required franchisees to hold brewed coffee between 180 and 190 degrees.1Cornell Law Institute. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994) That was noticeably hotter than what customers encountered at home or at competing chains. A thermodynamics expert testified that liquid at 180 degrees causes full-thickness burns in two to seven seconds. At around 155 degrees, that window stretches out long enough for a person to pull soaked clothing away from their skin before permanent damage is done.
How Badly Liebeck Was Hurt
The spill caused third-degree burns across six percent of Liebeck’s body, with lesser burns covering another ten percent. Third-degree burns destroy both the outer and inner layers of skin, so the tissue cannot heal on its own.2Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Third-Degree Burns The worst injuries concentrated on her inner thighs, groin, perineum, and buttocks.
She spent eight days in the hospital. Doctors performed debridement, cutting away dead tissue, and then skin grafts to close the wounds. Her recovery ran roughly two years. She was left with permanent scarring, significant loss of sensation, and reduced mobility. Her early medical bills came to about $20,000.
The $800 Offer That Sent the Case to Trial
Before hiring a lawyer, Liebeck spent six months trying to settle. She asked McDonald’s for approximately $20,000, an amount that would have covered her medical costs and lost income. The company offered $800. That number is the reason the case became a lawsuit. She was a retired department store clerk trying to cover hospital bills, not a plaintiff hunting for a payout.
The 700 Prior Burn Complaints
During discovery, Liebeck’s attorneys obtained internal McDonald’s records showing the company had received more than 700 reports of customers burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.1Cornell Law Institute. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994) Some involved children and infants. The temperature specification had not changed, and the warnings on the cups had not become more prominent.
McDonald’s quality assurance managers testified they knew coffee at 180 degrees or hotter could cause severe burns. Asked why the company hadn’t lowered the temperature, they said 700 complaints were statistically insignificant against the billions of cups sold. That testimony hurt the defense badly. It told the jury the company had run the numbers, decided the injuries were an acceptable cost of doing business, and kept serving coffee it knew was dangerous.
Why the Jury Found McDonald’s Liable
Liebeck’s team brought claims under strict product liability and negligence. The central question was whether the coffee was “unreasonably dangerous,” meaning it posed risks beyond what an ordinary consumer would expect. Courts call this the consumer expectations test: a product fails when it behaves in a way an average buyer would not anticipate.3Cornell Law Institute. Consumer Expectations Test People expect coffee to be hot and a spill to hurt. Most do not expect a spilled cup to require skin grafts. The jury concluded the extreme serving temperature crossed the line from foreseeable discomfort into unreasonable danger.
New Mexico applies comparative fault, so the jurors also weighed Liebeck’s own role.4Justia. New Mexico Code 41-3A-1 – Several Liability They assigned her 20 percent of the fault for putting the cup between her knees and McDonald’s 80 percent for serving a dangerously hot product without adequate warnings.
The Verdict and What Liebeck Actually Received
The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 after applying her share of fault. For punitive damages, it awarded $2.7 million, a figure the attorneys had calculated to roughly match two days of McDonald’s national coffee revenue.1Cornell Law Institute. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994) The logic was that a company treating 700 burn victims as background noise would only feel a punishment large enough to show up on the balance sheet.
Judge Robert Scott then applied remittitur, a tool that lets a judge reduce a jury award deemed excessive. He cut the punitive damages to $480,000. Even while doing so, he described McDonald’s conduct as “willful, wanton, and reckless.” Combined with the compensatory damages, the judgment came to $640,000. Before any appeal was decided, the parties reached a confidential settlement, widely reported to be less than $600,000.
What the Popular Version Gets Wrong
Within weeks of the verdict, the case became shorthand for a runaway jury system. Late-night hosts made jokes, Seinfeld referenced it, and several news outlets got basic facts wrong, including reporting that Liebeck had been driving.5American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds The record shows something different:
- She was not driving. She was a passenger in a parked car.
- She did not walk away with $2.7 million. The judge cut the punitive award to $480,000, and the final confidential settlement was reportedly lower.
- She originally asked for about $20,000 to cover medical bills. McDonald’s offered $800.
- Her injuries were catastrophic: eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, two years of treatment.
- McDonald’s had a decade of prior complaints and made a deliberate decision not to lower the coffee temperature.
What Changed After the Verdict
The day after the jury returned its verdict, reporters found that the Albuquerque McDonald’s where Liebeck was burned had already lowered its coffee to 158 degrees. At that temperature a spill still hurts, but the window before a third-degree burn stretches from a few seconds to roughly a minute. That gap is the safety margin the lawsuit had been asking for.
The case also became a fixture in debates over the civil justice system. Critics used it as evidence that juries hand out excessive damages for minor injuries. Consumer advocates pointed to the factual record and argued the opposite. Roughly half of U.S. states now impose some form of statutory cap on punitive damages.
Stella Liebeck died in 2004 at the age of 91. She rarely spoke publicly about the case that carried her name.