Liebeck v McDonald's and the True Stella Awards

After attending my first Law of Torts class for the year, some rather interesting, albeit disturbing thoughts, come to mind.

First, to briefly summarise the case studied. Grandmother and grandson drove to a McDonald's drive-through and bought a cup of hot coffee. Grandmother then proceeded to hold the cup between her knees and pull the lid off the cup. Coffee was spilt and soaked her cotton garments, giving her third degree burns.

The controversies that arise from the case, which the grandmother, Mrs Liebeck, won against McDonald's, are as follows:

1. the value judgment of responsibility

In essence, a ruling by a court in favour of Mrs Liebeck is saying that McDonald's was responsible for the burns suffered by Mrs Liebeck. At this juncture, it is important to clarify that anyone ought to sympathise with the sufferings of Mrs Liebeck from the burns.

But we must surely resist the knee-jerk reaction that somebody must hence pay for it. There are hardships all around us for which we cannot say that a specific entity is responsible. This situation could fall within that scope.


We must also be very clear as to why we think McDonald's ought to pay damages to Mrs Liebeck. From the facts, we obviously feel that since it was McDonald's hot coffee that scalded Mrs Liebeck, that the decent thing for McDonald's to do would be to help Mrs Liebeck with her medical fees. After all, that is what a decent person would do, could he afford it , and surely McDonald's has the money to do so.

That is all well and good. But that is not, and has never been, a function of the civil courts. The civil law does not compel people to be decent. The criminal law may uphold a certain minimum standard of morality, but the civil law has no jurisdiction to compel human decency. In any case, compelled decency is no decency at all.

In order for a court to, within its jurisdiction, compel McDonald's to pay damages, there must be a finding of fault with McDonald's actions, in this case, selling coffee that was 'too hot' without adequate warning. It is elementary logic that if you buy hot coffee, you ought to get it hot, and that it can scald. Several factors, such as the period of contact (affected by what clothing you wear) as well as the temperature of the drink, may affect the severity of the burns. But the essential point that everyone ought to know is that hot coffee scalds. What duty can there be on McDonald's part to state the overwhelmingly obvious?

Imagine a situation where you go to McDonald's and order a hot coffee. The server at the counter brings you a coffee and says, "Sir, be careful. It's hot." What would your response be? After all, is that not what you ordered?

Secondly, the issue of 'too hot' is really not about temperature, but a mask for the severity of injury, for which, as mentioned above, temperature alone is not the only factor. Moreover, any further study would have revealed that the temperature at which McDonald's makes coffee is the industry standard. Wherefore, too hot?

In essence, however, the case is really about McDonald's having ought to have done something to prevent Mrs Liebeck's injury, as opposed to Mrs Liebeck having to do something about it. Is that a reasonable burden for McDonald's to bear?

2. personal responsibility

This case is in many ways also about whether the law should protect people from themselves. If you make a mistake which you ought to know better about (opening a hot cup of coffee in a risky manner), should the law help to make your life easier after the disaster? It is surely the charitable thing to do, to help those who have unwittingly or carelessly harmed themselves, but is it something a court should be involved in? Especially since the court does not devote its own resources to do so, but makes someone else pay for it? Is it right to compel charity either?

The hard truth is simply this. If you make a mistake, you suffer the consequences. It would of course be nice if someone tangentially involved were to help you out, but you do not have a right to make them help you.

Note: Yes, thats an American case. And yes, that's why McDonald's coffee cups have "Caution: Hot!" on them. And yes, its bloody stupid.