Hot Coffee

In a recent case (Boyle v. Christensen, 2011 UT 20), the Utah Supreme Court faced the infamous 'McDonald's Coffee case' used in a closing argument.  The case concerned a trial on damages, liability having been admitted.  Here is paragraph 21 of the opinion:

¶21 Although the public view of the case is understandable when limited to a superficial view of its facts, a deeper look at the details and issues in the case may dramatically alter one’s perspective. Among the many relevant facts generally missing from the public consciousness are the following:
    (1) The temperature of the spilled coffee was so
    hot—180 to 190 degrees—that within seconds it caused
    third-degree burns that extended through the skin to
    the fat, muscle or bone on Ms. Liebeck’s thighs,
    buttocks and groin area. She was hospitalized for eight
    days, underwent skin grafts, was disabled for two
    years following the accident, and was permanently
    disfigured with scars on over 16 percent of her body.
    See Greenlee, supra, at 718–19; see also Angelos, supra, at
    21; Brian Timothy Beasley, North Carolina’s New
    Punitive Damages Statute: Who’s Being Punished,
    Anyway?, 74 N.C. L. REV. 2174, 2190 (1996).

    2) The jury heard evidence that McDonald’s had
    received approximately 700 other complaints about
    coffee-burn injuries in the previous decade (some of
    which were settled for a total outlay of over $500,000),
    but considered the number of injuries statistically
    insignificant and therefore did not lower the
    temperature of its coffee. See Marc Galanter, An Oil
    Strike in Hell: Contemporary Legends About the Civil
    Justice System, 40 ARIZ. L. REV. 717, 732 (1998);
    Greenlee, supra, at 719–22.

    (3) The jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages
    because it believed the extreme temperature of the
    coffee was unreasonably dangerous and that
    McDonald’s had callously disregarded the danger
    even after hundreds of injuries. The $2.7 million figure

    was based on the approximate revenues from just two
    days of McDonald’s coffee sales. Shari Seidman
    Diamond, Truth, Justice, and the Jury, 26 HARV. J.L. &
    PUB. POL’Y 143, 146–47 (2003).

The Court found the reference prejudicial, both because the case was irrelevant and intended to show plaintiffs' as greedy and undeserving.  Also helped that the defense lawyer misrepresented the nature of the case and the damages.

Interesting that this seems to be the first time the issue has come up.  By the by, the Court of Appeals so not wrong in it. 

Comments

[vibram five fingers]

The Court found the reference prejudicial, both because the case was irrelevant and intended to show plaintiffs' as greedy and undeserving.