2
I. Introduction
In 1992, then 79-year-old grandmother Ms. Stella Lieback had her grandson drive her
through the McDonalds’ drive-through for a cup of coffee, but little did she know such cup of
coffee would permanently change her life. Upon receiving the coffee, she put it in her lap
between her thighs. At some point thereafter while still in the vehicle, to add cream and sugar to
the coffee she tried to remove the lid (a lid designed and intended to keep the contents from
spilling out) and in doing so she spilled the entire cup on her lap. Her sweatpants absorbed and
kept the hot liquid against her skin, resulting in full thickness (third and/or fourth degree) burns
to her thighs, buttocks, groin, and genital area, as well as an eight-day hospitalization, skin
grafts, two years of follow up care, and significant medical fees to treat such.
When Ms. Lieback brought suit against McDonalds, she was willing to settle the case for
$20,000, but McDonalds refused to settle and decided to fight her claims. Upon trial, she was
awarded $160,000 dollars in compensatory damages and $2.7 million dollars in punitive
damages, but in post-trial proceedings the punitive damages were found to be excessive and
reduced to $480,000 dollars. Was this judgment against McDonalds appropriate? For reasons
herein related to public policy considerations involving consumer safety, reasonableness and
contributory negligence standards, tort law purposes, and other factors, such judgment against
McDonalds was appropriate, particularly given that the coffee given to her for immediate
consumption was so hot it would instantly melt the skin on her lips and tissues in her mouth and
upper gastrointestinal track if consumed, and also given that Ms. Lieback was contributorily
negligent and assumed dangerous risks of spilling the coffee by removing the lid while traveling
in a vehicle.
3
II. Analysis and Discussion
States have legitimate public policy interests (economic, employment, tax revenue, and
other interests) related to businesses being successful and employing citizens of the state, and
they also have public policy interests in consumer safety. When the underlying interests of
corporations and consumers are in competition with one another, which is what occurred here,
consumer safety generally prevails and tort law has developed to reflect such.
In this case, it was found that McDonalds sold cheap coffee in order to maximize
corporate profits. Because its cheap coffee did not taste good, McDonalds researched what could
be done to make it taste better to increase sales and profits, and its research allegedly found that
when such coffee was extremely hot consumers thought it tasted better than when it was at lower
temperatures (Urich, 2009). McDonalds thus sold its cheap coffee extremely hot in order to mask
its unsavory flavor and to try to increase sales and profits. In doing so, McDonalds disregarded
obvious risks to consumers stemming from the extremely high temperatures of its coffee.
The McDonalds coffee at issue was dangerously hot at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (180-
190 ). Such was approximately 70 degrees hotter than what most consumers expect and want ℉
their coffee to be (Urich, 2009). Liquids (including coffee) can cause third degree burns in 15
seconds at 133 , in 5 seconds at 140 , in 2 seconds at 149 , and in 1 second at 156 ℉ ℉ ℉ ℉
(Safety: High Temperature Safety, n.d., Hazard Overview).1 Liquids at the much higher
temperatures of 180-190 —such as the McDonalds coffee here—instantly melt human tissue ℉
on contact (Urich, 2009). This is what Ms. Lieback tragically experienced, and what McDonalds
knew or reasonably should have known could and would have occurred upon a consumer either
drinking such extremely hot coffee or spilling it on themselves or others. By continuing to sell its
1“Third-degree burns involve both layers of the skin and may also damage the underlying bones, muscles,
and tendons. The burn site appears pale, charred, or leathery. There is generally no pain in the area because the nerve
endings are destroyed” (Safety: High Temperature Safety, n.d., Burn Severity). Thus, third-degree burns are serious.
4
super-hot coffee, McDonalds disregarded these risks and posed an unreasonable risk of harm to
consumers (including Ms. Lieback) and did so in an effort to maximize corporate profits
associated with selling cheap, unsavory coffee. Such constituted the tort of negligence.
“Generally, negligence is conduct involving unreasonable risk of harm.” Weikert v. Delta Air
Lines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245384, *16 (E.D. Mich. October 25, 2021).
Tort law exists to redress wrongdoing and to provide remedies to people who experience
and suffer wrongs committed by others. “The common thread interweaving most torts is the
notion that socially unreasonable conduct should be penalized and those who are its victims
should be compensated” (Edwards, 2016, §1-3). In these regards, consumers generally do not
purchase a cup of coffee that will instantly melt their skin, lips, or mouth on contact, but one they
can immediately begin safely drinking without harm. McDonalds selling Ms. Lieback a cup of
coffee for immediate consumption that would literally melt her skin and tissues if consumed was
entirely unreasonable, egregiously wrong, and “socially unreasonable conduct [that] should be
penalized” (Edwards, 2016, §1-3). While consumers demand hot coffee, they do not want it so
hot that it melts their skin, mouth, and upper gastrointestinal track upon drinking it, and
McDonalds should have reasonably known this and known that coffee at such hot temperature
was undrinkable and unsafe for immediate consumption, and that drinking or spilling such could
and would cause serious burns, as Ms. Lieback experienced. Moreover, “even those
manufacturers and sellers who act reasonably are held liable to plaintiffs injured by their
products” (Edwards, 2016, §1-3). Thus, whether McDonalds acted unreasonably (as it obviously
did) or reasonably (as some might contend), liability could still be imposed and was thus justly
imposed in this case.
5
Although McDonalds selling such extremely hot coffee was unreasonable, Ms. Lieback
also acted unreasonably and negligently contributed to her own harm. When a party’s conduct
contributes to cause harm to themselves, in tort law such is known as contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the
standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally
contributing cause co-operating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about
the plaintiff's harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts, §463 (Am. Law Inst. 1965).
Here, Ms. Lieback negligently contributed to her own harm by placing a hot cup of coffee
between her thighs while in a presumably moving vehicle, all while knowing road surfaces are
not perfectly even or smooth and that stops, accelerations, turns, bumps, and driving errors can
and do occur, and then in this context decided to remove the coffee cup lid (a lid designed and
intended to keep the contents from spilling) and then spilled the entire cup of coffee on and
serious burned herself. It was unreasonable for her to remove the lid to try to add sugar and
cream to the coffee cup while in a presumably moving vehicle. While many people might do
this, they also assume the risk of spilling their coffee by doing so. When Ms. Lieback did so, she
assumed the dangerous risk that she could spill the coffee on and burn herself, and she was
plainly negligent in doing so and thereby negligently contributed to her own harm.2
Because New Mexico has the comparative fault rule (where all parties contributing to
cause an injury are severally and proportionally liable for such), the order entered in this case
expressly found that Ms. Lieback was 20% at fault (contributorily negligent) and impliedly
found that McDonalds was 80% at fault. See Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 1994 N.M.
2In most states, engaging in conduct while knowing of risks of harm from such conduct is known as the
assumption of risk doctrine and defense, but in New Mexico (where this incident occurred) such doctrine and
defense were merged into the contributory negligence doctrine and defense. See Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336,
340-342 (N.M. December 13, 1971).
6
Dist. LEXIS 2, *1-2 (N.M. 1994). Such was not only appropriate under New Mexico law, but
also appropriate under God’s law.
The Bible teaches that “[t]he person who sins will die” and “a son will not be punished
for his father’s sins, and a father will not be punished for his son’s sins” (Berean Study Bible,
2016/2020, Ezekiel 18:20). Such verse indicates people should only be punished for their own
wrongdoing, not for the wrongdoing of others. Thus, punishing McDonalds for Ms. Lieback’s
contributory negligence would have contravened God’s law, but such did not occur because New
Mexico courts go by the comparative fault rule that allocates punishment based on the amount of
fault each party is deemed proportionally responsible for.
Some might rightfully be concerned that imposing liability on McDonalds regarding this
incident was a slippery slope. A “slippery slope” exists when courts allow claims in one instance
and as a result are in danger of allowing all claims in similar circumstances that require
comparable treatment (Edwards, 2015, §1-6). “[W]ith any slippery slope argument, its power to
persuade is a function of the plausibility of its predictions.” Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. FERC, 36
F.4th 1179, 1184 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2022). Appreciation for such slippery slope concerns can be
derived from a few illustrative examples of what this McDonalds case could allow for: a chef
could sue a knife manufacturer for making a knife too sharp when the chef, while wearing
sandals and working at a beach restaurant, drops the knife and causes a puncture wound or
serious cut to his or her foot that necessitates multiple surgeries; someone who used too much
hot sauce could sue a hot sauce manufacturer for its hot sauce being too hot and causing
significant watery eyes, runny nose, difficulty breathing, emotional distress, and pain lasting
hours and giving rise to an emergency room visit; a pillow manufacturer being sued for its pillow
being too soft, resulting in neck cramps and pain when a consumer slept on it wrong; and
7
innumerable other situations involving millions of products. In these examples and others, under
the ruling and theory in this McDonalds case, consumers could impose product liability on
producers by mishandling, spilling, dropping, or misusing such products and injuring
themselves, as occurred here when Ms. Lieback negligently attempted to remove the coffee cup
lid and spilled the coffee, thereby burning herself. Courts are aware of these concerns and resort
to relying on the contributory negligence doctrine and other doctrines to reduce awards of
damages when plaintiffs negligently contribute to cause harm to themselves (as occurred here
with Ms. Lieback).
III. Conclusion
McDonalds is a very successful international fast-food restaurant that has been in
business for over 75 years. When such a large corporation is engaged in day-to-day transactions
selling beverages and food to millions of consumers, it has a duty to take reasonable measures to
ensure its products are safe for immediate consumption by consumers. Here, that did not occur
and Ms. Lieback suffered serious injury as a result. While Ms. Lieback was contributorily
negligent and contributed to cause the injuries she experienced, the courts justly awarded
damages to her based primarily on the tortious conduct McDonalds engaged in. The court’s
judgment was consistent with New Mexico comparative fault rules and contributory negligence
doctrines, as well as consistent with biblical commands of God, and the imposition of liability on
tortious corporations that harm consumers was also consistent with New Mexico’s public policy
interest in consumer safety.
8
References
Restatement (Second) of the Law, Torts. (1965). American Law Institute.
Edwards, J. S. (2016). Tort Law (6th Edition). Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.
Safety: High-Temperature Safety. (n.d.). University of Wisconsin. Retrieved August 28, 2023,
from https://safety.ep.wisc.edu/hazards/high-temperature-safety.
The Holy Bible: Berean Study Bible. (2020). Biblehub.com. https://biblehub.com (Original work
published 2016).
Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. FERC, 36 F.4th 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Urich, A. [DrAndrewUrich]. (2009, November 20). McDonalds Hot Coffee [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uukSFkZGlks&t=3s.
Weikert v. Delta Air Lines, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245384 (E.D. Mich. 2021).
Williamson v. Smith, 83 N.M. 336 (N.M. 1971). New Mexico Supreme Court.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
