In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s hot coffee case, a 79-year-old New Mexico woman named Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns from a 49-cent cup of drive-through coffee in 1992, and a jury later awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages after learning McDonald’s had received more than 700 similar burn complaints over the previous decade and refused to lower its coffee temperature. The number most people remember is not the number she received. The story most people tell is not what happened.
What Happened to Stella Liebeck
On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered coffee from a McDonald’s drive-through in Albuquerque. Her grandson was driving. He pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and sugar, and because the Ford Probe had no cup holders, Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and pulled off the lid. The entire cup spilled into her lap.1Wikipedia. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants
She was wearing cotton sweatpants, which soaked up the liquid and held it against her skin. The coffee caused third-degree burns — the kind that destroy skin down through the fat layer — across six percent of her body, with less severe burns on another sixteen percent.1Wikipedia. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants The worst damage was on her inner thighs, buttocks, and groin. She spent eight days in the hospital, underwent skin grafting and whirlpool debridement treatments, and was partially disabled for more than two years.
What Liebeck Asked For Before Suing
For roughly six months after the burns, Liebeck tried to get McDonald’s to cover her medical costs, which ran between $15,000 and $20,000. The company wrote back offering $800.2American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds That rejection is what sent her to a lawyer.
Even after she filed suit, she kept trying to settle. Her attorney offered to end the case for $300,000. A court-appointed mediator recommended $225,000. McDonald’s declined every offer and took the case to trial.
What McDonald’s Knew About the Burn Risk
The negligence claim did not turn on the spill. It turned on what McDonald’s had known for a decade. Internal documents showed the company required its franchises to hold coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.2American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds Home-brewed coffee is typically drunk between 120 and 140 degrees. Above 160 degrees, a serious burn can happen in under a second.3American College of Emergency Physicians. Burns At 190 degrees, severe injury on skin contact was essentially instantaneous.
Between 1982 and 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of customers burned by its coffee, including children.2American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds The holding temperature was never lowered. The company’s own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food served above 140 degrees and that McDonald’s coffee at the required temperature was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. He also acknowledged the company had never conducted a comprehensive study of the burn risk. McDonald’s position was that the higher temperature preserved flavor for commuters planning to drink the coffee later.
How the Jury Reached $2.7 Million
The trial took place in Albuquerque in August 1994. Under New Mexico’s comparative fault rules, the jury assigned 20 percent of the fault to Liebeck and 80 percent to McDonald’s.4Justia Law. New Mexico Statutes 41-3A-1 – Several Liability They set compensatory damages at $200,000 for medical costs and pain, then reduced that figure to $160,000 to reflect her share of responsibility.5Cornell Law Institute. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994)
The $2.7 million figure came from the punitive damages calculation. Jurors arrived at that number by looking at roughly two days of McDonald’s global coffee revenue, which was approximately $1.35 million per day at the time.2American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds Punitive damages are meant to punish reckless conduct and deter its repetition, and the jury wanted a figure a company that size would notice.
What Liebeck Actually Received
The trial judge called McDonald’s conduct “willful, wanton, and reckless” but still cut the punitive award to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount.2American Museum of Tort Law. Liebeck v. McDonalds Combined with the compensatory damages, the modified judgment came to $640,000.1Wikipedia. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants
Both sides prepared to appeal, then settled confidentially. The terms were sealed. News accounts at the time reported the final payment was less than $500,000. Liebeck never received the $2.7 million figure that has followed her name ever since.
Why the Public Version Is Wrong
The case became a punchline within hours of the verdict. Headlines reported the initial $2.7 million punitive number without the reduction, the settlement, or the medical facts. The version that stuck was that a careless woman spilled coffee on herself and hit the legal jackpot.
Nearly every element of that version is wrong. Liebeck was not driving. She did not sue immediately; she spent six months trying to have her hospital bills paid. The award was not a windfall on top of a minor injury; she required skin grafts and was partially disabled for two years. And the $2.7 million figure widely repeated was reduced by the judge and further modified by a confidential settlement. Consumer advocates have argued the distorted narrative was picked up by tort reform campaigns during the 1990s and used in state legislatures as evidence that jury verdicts were out of control. A 2011 documentary called Hot Coffee, directed by trial lawyer Susan Saladoff, revisited the trial evidence to challenge that version of events.
What Changed After the Verdict
The day after the verdict, the Albuquerque McDonald’s where Liebeck was burned began serving coffee at 158 degrees, more than 30 degrees cooler than the pre-lawsuit standard. Research on beverage temperature suggests that a range of 130 to 160 degrees balances the desire for a hot drink against the risk of serious scalding.6PubMed. A Review of Hot Beverage Temperatures – Satisfying Consumer Preference and Safety
The trial also became a reference point for product liability lawyers on how corporate knowledge of a hazard can drive a verdict. Seven hundred burn complaints, a written temperature policy, no safety review, and no change in practice added up to the record that persuaded the jury. When a company’s own files show it knew a product was injuring people and treated those injuries as an acceptable cost, the file itself becomes the strongest evidence against it.