The most famous case in American History---it might be the McDonald's coffee spill case

The McDonald's coffee spill verdict caused quite a stir (no pun intended). The punitive damage verdict of almost $3,000,000, later reduced to $480,000, was fodder for the media and corporate america to distort the facts for the purpose of attacking our civil justice system. This case was used and continues to be used for a political agenda to prevent access to the court system and immunize corporations from civil liability. A new movie in production will expose the motivations of those big business and insurance interests who manipulated the media using the McDonald's coffee spill case. For now, you can watch a three minute trailer for a preview of the feature documentary film "HOT COFFEE: Is Justice being Served?" at the film producers blog at http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/trailer/ Please take a look at the trailer for some brief illumination of the types of unfair manuevering that big business and insurance interests will perform in order to protect their own interests and consequently harm your individual rights and access to the courts.

Do you want to know the real facts of the McDonald's coffee case? For now, please take a look at the fact sheet compiled by the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association) as found set forth below. Otherwise, keep you eye out for the eventual release of "HOT COFFEE: Is Justice being Served?".

My point today is that we can't allow ourselves to believe and be mislead by the prevalent attacks on the civil justice system and Plaintiff -victims that we read and hear through the media. We need to step back and investigate to make certain that the facts which form the basis of any campaign against the civil justice system are true and accurate. We owe that to ourselves in order to do our best to make sure that justice is not being attacked by fiction but instead is being preserved by truth.

FYI: Here are the real facts of the McDonald's coffee case:

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee inFebruary 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilledinto her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. Thish istory documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature ofthis hazard. McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultantsadvice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sellcoffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home isgenerally 135 to 140 degrees.Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skinburns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a fullthickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work orhome, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee andthat a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amountwas reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million inpunitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffeesales. Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge calledMcDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.No one will ever know the final ending to this case.The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has neverbeen revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.-----excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995,

Nat Smith