The Truth About the Liebeck vs McDonald's Case

 

In February 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck went through the drive-thru at McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was riding in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car. After receiving her coffee, the vehicle pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and sugar.

 

There was no cup holder. Liebeck placed the Styrofoam cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid. The cup tipped, and the entire contents spilled directly into her lap.

The coffee had been served at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit.

Within seconds, she suffered catastrophic injuries. The scalding liquid soaked into her cotton sweatpants and held the heat against her skin. She sustained third-degree burns over approximately 16% of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and groin. Third-degree burns destroy multiple layers of skin and can require surgical removal of damaged tissue.

Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days. Doctors performed skin grafts, and she required weeks of recovery. At nearly 80 years old, the healing process was especially difficult. Medical bills reached roughly $20,000.

Before filing a lawsuit, Liebeck attempted to settle the matter privately. She asked McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses and lost income for her daughter, who cared for her during recovery. McDonald’s offered eight hundred dollars.

Stella Liebeck sought legal assistance.

Once the case went to trial in 1994, internal company documents revealed key facts:

• McDonald’s required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190°F, significantly hotter than many home coffee makers.
• The company had received over 700 prior burn complaints in the preceding decade.
• A quality assurance manager testified that coffee at that temperature could cause third-degree burns in 3 to 7 seconds.
• The company acknowledged the risk but believed the number of injuries was statistically insignificant compared to total cups sold.

Liebeck’s attorneys argued that serving coffee at that temperature without adequate warning constituted a defective and unreasonably dangerous product.

The jury agreed.

They awarded:

• $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20% responsible.
• $2.7 million in punitive damages, calculated as roughly two days of McDonald’s coffee revenue.
• Punitive damages are designed not just to compensate the victim but to punish and deter corporate misconduct.
• The trial judge later reduced the punitive award to about $480,000. Before appeals were completed, both sides reached a confidential settlement.

The case quickly became national news. Headlines mocked it as a frivolous lawsuit—“woman sues over hot coffee.” Late-night comedians turned it into a punchline. But much of the public narrative left out the severity of her injuries and the evidence presented at trial.

Today, the case remains a central example in debates over tort reform, corporate accountability, media framing, and how civil jury awards are portrayed to the public.

Far from a simple spill, the Stella Liebeck case became one of the most misunderstood legal stories in modern American history.

More Information

You can find out more information about this case by following our research on our Patreon page.  We have also included an additional podcast specifically for our paid subscribers.  To connect to that page, click here.