Did you hear the one about the lady who sued McDonald’s because her coffee was too hot?
In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck sat in the passenger seat of her car, which her grandson parked in a McDonald’s lot. Lacking a cup holder, she held a paper cup of coffee between her knees to add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled onto her sweatpants, leaving her legs and groin to soak in 180°F liquid for 90 seconds—long enough to cause third-degree burns over 16% of her body, necessitating an eight-day hospital stay, skin grafts, and two years of recovery.
The resulting lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, remains an oft-misunderstood case.
At the time of the incident, McDonald’s policy was to serve coffee between 180°F to 190°F, which is what coffee experts believe to be the ideal temperature to ensure a rich, bold flavor. This temperature range is also sufficient to lead to third-degree burns and hospitalization after prolonged exposure, such as could happen with a spill and soaked sweatpants.
Prior to Liebeck’s lawsuit, McDonald’s had logged over 700 complaints in 10 years regarding their coffee’s temperature. Most did not result in severe injuries, but to the jurors in Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, this track record spoke to the company’s lack of concern for lowering its coffee temperature and reducing the risk of burns. “Even if it’s just one person [injured], that’s enough to pay attention to. One person spoke up. I’m sure there are more that were damaged by hot coffee,” juror Marjorie Getman said in the 2011 documentary Hot Coffee,1 which examines the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case. “It’s so easy to burn at that temperature and [McDonald’s] was so indifferent about it.”
The rest of the jury agreed with Getman. Liebeck was initially awarded $200,000 for compensatory damages, but this was reduced to $160,000 because they decided that McDonald’s held 80% of the responsibility while Liebeck held the remaining 20%. Liebeck was also initially awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, but this was reduced to $480,000.
When you consider the incident in terms of what McDonald’s could have done to prevent the incidents, serving coffee at cooler temperatures looks like an obvious solution. This is the solution that jumps out if we build a simple 5-Why Cause Map™ from the perspective of McDonald’s.
Hot Coffee Burn 5-Why – McDonald’s Perspective
But if we examine the incident in terms of what Liebeck could have done to prevent the incident, we can build a different 5-Why that reveals different causes and different potential solutions. In the diagram below, we can see that the spill was caused by removing the lid and tipping the coffee cup, which was caused by Liebeck adding cream and sugar. Liebeck could prevent similar incidents in the future by avoiding the actions that led to the spill.
Hot Coffee Burn 5-Why – Customer’s Perspective
Combining both perspectives to expand our analysis allows us to surface additional measures that both McDonald's and its customers could take to prevent future burns. For example, McDonald’s could redesign its cup lids or have servers add cream and sugar for customers. Customers could step out of the car to add cream and sugar, walk inside the restaurant to order coffee or keep a towel or cool pack handy.
Hot Coffee Burn 10-Why
After the lawsuit, Liebeck’s story became a joke in the public eye, even getting referenced in a Seinfeld2 episode mocking the incident. Many believed Liebeck won “millions” for spilling coffee on her lap and saw her as an example of consumers gaming the legal system for easy money.
Since Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, McDonald’s has faced more lawsuits related to its coffee temperatures. Joseph Megara3 of New Jersey recently sued McDonald's for the injuries he sustained from the company’s hot coffee. Since late 2023, three similar incidents related to McDonald’s hot beverages have been reported in New Jersey alone.
McDonald’s isn’t alone in facing legal challenges related to its beverage temperatures. Starbucks4 was also recently sued by a customer who was burned when a cup of 210-degree Jade Citrus Mint Brewed Tea spilled in her lap. In this case, the beverage lid “unexpectedly opened,” and the lawsuit alleges Starbucks failed to “undertake any effort to determine or minimize the occurrence of lids popping off cups.”
The Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case provides insight into the repercussions of viewing an incident from a single point of view. If you only consider what McDonald’s could have done to prevent the burn, it might look like the only solution is to lower coffee temperatures. Similarly, if you only consider what Liebeck could have done, it might look like the only solution is to avoid removing coffee cup lids.
But when you examine multiple perspectives and dig into the multiple causes of an incident, you can identify multiple solutions to prevent similar incidents in the future. To gain the skills you need to investigate incidents thoroughly and identify robust solution sets, join one of our in-person or live online workshops.
1 - Hot Coffee Documentary
2 - Seinfeld
3 - Joseph Megara
4 - Starbucks