McDonald’s Faces Another ‘Hot Coffee’ Lawsuit | Oct 2023

October 2, 2023

October 2023 | Volume 15, Issue 3

The San Francisco “Hot Coffee” Lawsuit

According to the article, a new lawsuit may leave McDonald's once again crying over spilled coffee.

A lawyer for Mable Childress has alleged in a complaint that "scalding" coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru in San Francisco spilled onto Childress in June, leaving her with "severe burns and emotional distress." According to the lawsuit, filed recently in a California court, McDonald's employees "improperly" secured the lid to Childress' coffee cup, causing it to open unexpectedly and pour hot liquid onto her when she tried to drink from it.

"[The employees'] negligence was a substantial factor in causing [Childress] harm," the lawyer said in the complaint.

The incident left Childress with scarring in her groin area, according to the suit.

Childress, described as "an elder woman," in the suit, tried to report the incident to three employees at the restaurant, they "refused" to help her, and later "ignored," according to her claim. She eventually left the restaurant to seek medical attention for her injuries after being "ignored."

The Company’s Response

"My restaurants have strict food safety protocols in place, including training crew to ensure lids on hot beverages are secure," McDonald's owner and operator Peter Ou said in a statement.

"We take every customer complaint seriously – and when Ms. Childress reported her experience to us later that day, our employees and management team spoke to her within a few minutes and offered assistance. We're reviewing this new legal claim in detail," he said.

Previous Cases

This is not the first time McDonald's has faced a lawsuit over the temperature of its beverages. In 1992, a court famously ordered the company to pay nearly $3 million to an elderly woman who suffered "severe burns" from a 49-cent cup of coffee that was heated to a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees.

A California woman also sued the fast-food restaurant in 2014, alleging its employees "improperly" secured the lid of the cup of hot coffee she ordered, causing the scalding liquid to spill onto her and burn her. A settlement was reached in that case as well, according to Eater.com, which reported at the time that details had not been disclosed.

In July, a Florida jury awarded $800,000 to a girl who alleged she suffered severe burns when a Chicken McNugget fell onto her leg in 2019.

Discussion Questions

1. Please refer to the two internet addresses referenced in the “Teaching Tips” section. How is the subject case like the famous McDonald’s “hot coffee” case filed by Ms. Stella Liebeck in 1992? Based on the facts presented in this article and the videos referenced in the “Teaching Tips,” is the subject case distinguishable in any appreciable way from the Liebeck case?

Even though Mable Childress’ McDonald’s “hot coffee” case is over 30 years removed from the Stella Liebeck case, the two cases are strikingly similar. Both involve scalding hot coffee served by McDonald’s, elderly plaintiffs, drive-thru service, and similar injuries.

2. Conduct some research regarding whether the state of California is a “contributory negligence” or a “comparative negligence” jurisdiction. Based on your research, what relevance (if any) will California’s legal position regarding contributory/comparative negligence have on the outcome of the subject case?

California is a “pure” comparative negligence jurisdiction. Comparative negligence is a defense to negligence liability which states that if the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to their harm, the plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced by their percentage of responsibility. For example, if the plaintiff’s damages are $100,000, the plaintiff was 25 percent responsible for their own harm due to their own negligence and the defendant was 75 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s harm, the plaintiff will recover $75,000 ($100,000 minus $25,000) from the defendant. Currently, 46 states recognize some form of the comparative negligence doctrine.

As recognized in response to Article 2, Discussion Question 3 of the newsletter, the contributory negligence doctrine is a defense to negligence liability. Currently, four states (North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Maryland) recognize the doctrine of contributory negligence. This doctrine states that if the plaintiff’s negligence, however slight, contributed to their harm in any way, the plaintiff cannot recover anything from the defendant. This doctrine applies even if a jury should determine that the plaintiff’s personal negligence was 1 percent responsible for their harm, while the defendant’s negligence was 99 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s harm. In the previous hypothetical involving a plaintiff’s whose damages are $100,000, the plaintiff was 25 percent responsible for their own harm due to their own negligence and the defendant was 75 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s harm, the plaintiff will recover nothing from the defendant, even though the defendant was significantly more responsible for the plaintiff’s harm.

Obviously, a states’ choice regarding comparative or contributory negligence theory has a tremendous impact on civil negligence cases filed within their jurisdiction.

3. Based on the information presented in the article, do you have an opinion regarding the outcome of this case? If so, what is your opinion? Explain your response.

This is an opinion question, so student responses will likely vary. In your author’s opinion, if the plaintiff’s allegations as set forth in the article are true, there is ample evidence to hold McDonald’s responsible for negligence. McDonald’s has had at least over 30 years (i.e., since the Liebeck case) to understand that it has a duty of care to its customers to prevent them from sustaining serious personal injuries due to hot coffee. With that being said, your author needs additional information to determine the extent (if any) that Ms. Childress’ negligence contributed to her own harm. Such evidence will be crucial in determining the comparative negligence between McDonald’s and Ms. Childress.