Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Last updated

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
Full case name Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc.
DecidedAugust 18, 1994
Citations1994 Extra LEXIS 23 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994), 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994),
Court membership
Judge sittingRobert H. Scott

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain. [1]

Contents

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004), [2] a 79-year-old woman, purchased hot coffee from a McDonald's restaurant, accidentally spilled it in her lap, and suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $160,000 [3] in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $2.7 million (equivalent to $5,600,000in 2023) in punitive damages, the equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. [4]

The Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. It was cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation; [5] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", [6] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". [7] Ex-attorney Susan Saladoff sees the portrayal in the media as purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influence. [8] In June 2011, HBO premiered Hot Coffee , a documentary that discussed in depth how the Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform. [9]

Burn incident

Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. [10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. [11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin. [12] [13]

Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. [14] [13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter. [15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. [16] [17]

Attempts to settle

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's [15] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. [18] McDonald's offered only $800. [19]

When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained the Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial; McDonald's refused both. [12]

Trial

The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. [20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. [12] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. [21]

McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. [22] Another of McDonald's reasons for serving such hot coffee is advice from consultants that high temperatures are necessary in brewing to fully extract the flavor. [12]

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. [12] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. [12] [23]

Verdict

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. [20] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20 percent to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. According to The New York Times , the jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues, about $1.35 million per day. [14] [12]

The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. [24] The Albuquerque Journal ran the first story of the verdict, followed by the Associated Press wire, which was picked up by newspapers around the world. [25]

Aftermath

The Liebeck case is often cited in a misleading manner by proponents of tort reform, who present an inaccurate or incomplete summary of the facts in order to falsely frame the case as frivolous litigation. [5] [26] [27] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits". [6] Legal commentator Jonathan Turley called it "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". [7] McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although McDonald's in fact had not done so. [28]

Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part. [29] [30] [31] They state that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury. [32]

Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. [33]

Similar lawsuits

In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous". [32]

In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in the United Kingdom failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature. [34]

Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A, [35] Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King, [36] hospitals, [37] and McDonald's [38] have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. There have also been lawsuits over injuries from other hot liquids. [39]

Two years prior to Liebeck, a similar lawsuit was settled during the trial for $15 million due to injuries from a sink in a rented apartment. [40]

Another lawsuit involving McDonald's was heard in Florida with the restaurant sued after a four-year-old girl suffered second-degree burns after a chicken nugget from a Happy Meal fell in between her leg and the seatbelt. [41] McDonald's was found liable for negligence in the case and in July 2023 the girl, then eight years-old, was awarded $800,000 in damages. [42]

Coffee temperature

According to a 2007 report, McDonald's had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), [28] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). [28] [43] However, in 2013, the New York Times reported that McDonald's had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). [14] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. [43] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).[ citation needed ]

Hot Coffee documentary

On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems, Hot Coffee . A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns.

The New York Times Retro Report

On October 21, 2013, The New York Times published a Retro Report video about the media reaction and an accompanying article about the changes in coffee drinking over 20 years. [14] [44] The New York Times noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide, [14] and that McDonald's, rather than Liebeck, was portrayed as the victim. [45] Within a month, the Retro Report video had more than one million views and had triggered debate in the online comments. [46]

See also

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randy Cassingham</span>

Randy C Cassingham is an American syndicated columnist, humorist, publisher, and speaker. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists. He has been the keynote speaker at several of The Skeptics Society's annual conventions.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scalding</span> Medical condition

Scalding is a form of thermal burn resulting from heated fluids such as boiling water or steam. Most scalds are considered first- or second-degree burns, but third-degree burns can result, especially with prolonged contact. The term is from the Latin word calidus, meaning hot.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-economic damages caps</span> Limitations in lawsuits

Non-economic damages caps are tort reforms to limit damages in lawsuits for subjective, non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and loss of enjoyment of life. This is opposed to economic damages, which encompasses pecuniary harms such as medical bills, lost wages, lost future income, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, and loss of employment or business opportunities. Non-economic damages should not be confused with punitive or exemplary damages, which are awarded purely to penalise defendants and do not aim to compensate either pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses.

Neil Papiano was an American lawyer, and managing partner of Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch. He received Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from Stanford University, the latter in 1957, and an LL.B. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1961. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1961.

The strip search phone call scam was a series of incidents, mostly occurring in rural areas of the United States, that extended over a period of at least ten years, starting in 1994. The incidents involved a man calling a restaurant or grocery store, claiming to be a police officer, and then convincing managers to conduct strip searches of employees, and to perform other bizarre and humiliating acts on behalf of "the police". The calls were most often made to fast-food restaurants in small towns.

McDonald's has been involved in a number of lawsuits and other legal cases in the course of the fast food chain's 70-year history. Many of these have involved trademark issues, most of which involving the "Mc" prefix, but McDonald's has also launched a defamation suit which has been described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

Insurance bad faith is a tort unique to the law of the United States that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Museum of Tort Law</span> Law museum in Winsted, Connecticut

The American Museum of Tort Law is a museum developed by Ralph Nader, located in his hometown of Winsted, Connecticut. The museum focuses on topics of civil justice and "aspects of the legal system that handle wrongful actions that result in injury". The museum opened to the public in September 2015. It is the first law museum in the United States.

Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable fines does not apply to punitive-damage awards in civil cases when the United States is not a party.

<i>Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International</i>

Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International was a 1985 lawsuit filed by Helen Byron in Portland, Oregon, against Rajneesh Foundation International, the organization of Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Byron had been recruited to join the Rajneesh movement by her daughter, Barbara. She traveled to India to join her daughter and the organization. Byron provided over US$300,000 to the organization, and some of the money was used to buy an armored Rolls-Royce for Rajneesh. Byron spoke to the legal leader of the organization, Ma Anand Sheela, and requested that her money be returned, asserting that it was a loan. Sheela reportedly told her that the money would be returned to her once the group moved to Oregon. Byron followed the organization to its location in Oregon, known as Rajneeshpuram, and requested through an attorney that her money be returned. In 1985, she filed a lawsuit against the organization in federal court, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

<i>Hot Coffee</i> (film) 2011 American film

Hot Coffee is a 2011 documentary film that analyzes and discusses the impact of tort reform on the United States judicial system. It is directed by Susan Saladoff, who has practiced as a medical malpractice attorney for at least 26 years. The film premiered at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2011, and later aired on HBO on June 27, 2011, as a part of HBO films documentary summer series. The title is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit, in which the plaintiff Liebeck was severely burned after spilling into her lap hot coffee purchased from a McDonald's.

<i>Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract. The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire. According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."

TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U.S. 443 (1993), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which upheld the decision of the West Virginia state court awarding $19,000 in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Although multiple justices recognized that the punitive damages were 526 times the compensatory damages, the Court held a "general concern of reasonableness" should guide courts in determining constitutionally acceptable damages under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. August 18, 1994), docket entry from nmcourts.com
  2. ↑ Simmons, Andy (July 15, 2021). "Remember the Hot Coffee Lawsuit? It Changed the Way McDonald's Heats Coffee Forever". Reader's Digest.
  3. ↑ "Liebeck v. McDonald's". www.tortmuseum.org. June 13, 2016. Retrieved January 13, 2022.
  4. ↑ "McDonald's settles lawsuit over burn from coffee". The Wall Street Journal. December 2, 1994. B6.
  5. 1 2 Greenlee 1997, p. 701.
  6. 1 2 Pearel, Lauren (May 2, 2007). "'I'm Being Sued for WHAT?'". ABC News . Archived from the original on March 27, 2015.
  7. 1 2 Levin, Myron (August 14, 2005). "Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway | Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system". www.kentlaw.edu. Archived from the original on March 3, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  8. ↑ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine : Pacchia, Lee (June 28, 2011). "Hot Coffee Filmmaker Says Contributions Produce Biased Judges". YouTube . Bloomberg.
  9. ↑ Tucker, Ken (June 27, 2011). "The must-watch TV show of the night: 'Hot Coffee' on HBO". Entertainment Weekly . Retrieved June 28, 2011.
  10. ↑ Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media (MP4). The New York Times. October 21, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  11. ↑ Michael McCann, William Haltom, and Anne Bloom, "Law & Society Symposium: Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon", 56 U. Miami L. Rev. 113 (October 2001), which describes the accident in detail
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Gerlin, Andrea (September 1, 1994). "A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million" (PDF). The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2015.
  13. 1 2 Nader & Smith 1996, p. 268.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media (MP4). The New York Times. October 21, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  15. 1 2 FindLaw's team of legal writers. "The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction". Findlaw.
  16. ↑ Horsey, Kirsty; Rackley, Erika (June 18, 2013). Tort Law. Oxford University Press. pp. 356–. ISBN   978-0-19-966189-3.
  17. ↑ Haltom & McCann 2009, pp. 186ff.
  18. ↑ Amended Complaint about Damages, Stella LIEBECK, Plaintiff, v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS, P.T.S, Inc. and McDonald's Corporation, Defendants. 1993 WL 13651163, District Court of New Mexico, (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. October 5, 1993)
  19. ↑ "The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case". www.caoc.org. Retrieved April 15, 2022.
  20. 1 2 Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, docket entry from nmcourts.com [ full citation needed ]
  21. ↑ "Liebeck v. McDonald's". www.tortmuseum.org. June 13, 2016. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
  22. ↑ "McDsScaldingCoffee". www.gtla.org.
  23. ↑ Nader & Smith 1996, pp. 270–272.
  24. ↑ Daniel J. Shapiro, Punitive Damages in Louisiana: A Year of Controversy, 43 La. B.J. 252, 254 n.1(1995).[ verification needed ]
  25. ↑ Document 00689724 - McDonalds scalding: woman burned by hot coffee gets $2.9 million. Albuquerque: Associated Press. August 18, 1994.
  26. ↑ McCann, Michael; Haltom, William; Bloom, Anne (2001). "Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon". U. Miami L. Rev. 56 (113).
  27. ↑ Malhotra, Neil (October 21, 2022). "An Empirical Analysis of "Tort Tales": How Cultural Memes Influence Attitudes on Tort Reform". Journal of Law and Courts. 3 (1): 149–166. doi:10.1086/679018. ISSN   2164-6570.
  28. 1 2 3 "Huntingdon & St Ives latest news - Burger chain sued after boy's ordeal". www.cambridge-news.co.uk. June 22, 2007. Archived from the original on May 15, 2009. Retrieved May 14, 2008.
  29. ↑ Bainbridge, Stephen (August 1, 2004). "Trial lawyer propaganda at kos" (revised relocated blog entry). Retrieved May 14, 2008.)
  30. ↑ Sebok, Anthony J. (November 2006). "Dispatches from the Tort Wars". Texas Law Review. 85: 1509–1510.
  31. ↑ Frank, Ted (October 20, 2005). "Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case". Overlawyered.
  32. 1 2 "Angelina and Jack McMahon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bunn-O-Matic Corporation, James River Paper Company, and Wincup Holdings, L.P., Defendants-Appellees". Findlaw. July 2, 1998.
  33. ↑ Smith, Toby (January 6, 2009). "Student Measured Heat in Coffee Case". Albuquerque Journal . Retrieved May 16, 2015.
  34. ↑ England and Wales High Court (March 25, 2002). "Bogle & Ors v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd". www.bailii.org. 33.
  35. ↑ Hurtado, Linda (February 12, 2011). "Local woman sues National Franchise over coffee". ABC Action News. The E.W. Scripps Co. Archived from the original on November 4, 2011. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  36. ↑ "Burned woman sues Burger King". 3 News NZ. January 10, 2012. Archived from the original on November 13, 2013. Retrieved January 9, 2013.
  37. ↑ O'Brien, John (June 6, 2006). "Woman's estate sues over hot coffee". The West Virginia Record . Madison County Record, Inc. Retrieved March 22, 2013.
  38. ↑ Behme, Todd J. (March 23, 2012). "McDonald's hit with 2 hot-coffee lawsuits". Crain's Chicago Business . Retrieved April 21, 2013.
  39. ↑ Burke, Minyvonne (April 22, 2020). "Family of 3-year-old severely burned at Wawa by hot water gets $3 million settlement". NBC News .
  40. ↑ York, Michael (May 27, 1992). "Child Scalded In Sink To Get $15 Million". The Washington Post .
  41. ↑ "McDonald's found liable for hot Chicken McNugget that burned girl". AP News. May 12, 2023. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
  42. ↑ "Jury awards Florida girl burned by McDonald's Chicken McNugget $800,000 in damages". AP News . Retrieved July 21, 2023.
  43. 1 2 Greenlee 1997, p. 724.
  44. ↑ Stout, Hilary (October 21, 2013). "Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore" . Retro Report. The New York Times . Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  45. ↑ Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media (MP4). The New York Times. October 21, 2013. Event occurs at 6:45–11:35.
  46. ↑ Bertram, Bonnie (October 25, 2013). "Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee" . Retro Report. The New York Times . Retrieved October 26, 2013.

Bibliography

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.