Analysis of the documentary Hot Coffee

Hot Coffee: Movie Legal Analysis

One of the most famous cases used to indicate the over-litigious nature of modern society is that of Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, in which an elderly woman sued McDonald's after spilling hot coffee upon her lap.[footnoteRef:1] Although the case was much-mocked, the plaintiff in question actually suffered severe burns as a result of the mishap. The film underlines the need for the legal system to take an active role in securing justice for wronged consumers, and suggests that we should not be deterred by the conservative, pro-business propaganda that views such exercises as silly or frivolous. [1: Hot Coffee (HBO 2011)]

The elderly woman at the center of the lawsuit had placed the coffee between her legs to open the lid. The coffee, unbeknownst to Stella Liebeck, was nearly 200F. When it spilled, it gave her third-degree burns on her legs and pelvis, resulting in severe pain and a long, protracted regime of skin grafts. Liebeck at first tried to settle with McDonald's simply for the costs of her medical bills but the company ultimately refused, resulting in the litigation that earned her a $2.86 million award. However, in the popular media the example was used by advocates of tort reform who argued that limits upon settlements should be placed, without truly airing the full facts of the case, including the damaged suffered by Liebeck. McDonald's had received numerous complaints about the extreme heat of its coffee, which it had ignored or quietly settled out of court for low sums without changing the temperature. Thanks to Liebeck's action, McDonald's did finally reduce the temperature of its coffee, making it (slightly) safer to drink.

The film also takes issue with other common positions of the tort reform movement, such as limiting damage awards. The film notes a tragic case of a woman who was not given a necessary C-section and ultimately one of the twins she was carrying was born with severe birth defects -- her original award from the jury for medical malpractice against the doctor was substantially reduced, and while her final award was still over a million dollars this was not enough to fully compensate her for the lifetime of additional special services her child will need. The film underlines the fact that caps do not take into consideration the individual characteristics of specific cases and one of the principles of our justice system is the acknowledgement of such individualization.