Some people love to talk about all the frivolous lawsuits that are out there.  You hear it drool out of the mouths of certain politicians, you see websites devoted to supposedly exposing the frivolous claims and you can hear a congo line of stiff lipped commentators and talking heads on tv and radio shows blaming frivolous lawsuits as the reason for the lawsuit “crisis” in this country.  Are there truly frivolous lawsuits?  Do we really have a lawsuit “crisis” in this country?  Are there really lawyers out there with so much time on their hands or so little coin in their pocket that they are filing ridiculous claims in the hope of a large recovery?  And what about that woman that got burned by the McDonald’s coffee and won millions?!

     When people mention “frivolous” claims, I guess we can only conclude that what they mean is that the case lacks any true legal basis for being brought.  I presume that frivolous claims can also include those cases that just sound silly to us, although we don’t really know as “lay people” whether those types of cases have legal merit or not;  rather, they just sound silly.  As a lawyer trying cases, my take on a frivolous case would be one that so lacks legal support that the act of filing it is frivolity at best.  The other type of frivolous cases, the ones that just sound “silly” or “dumb” or what have you, I think everyone should realize may in fact have sound legal footing.  But, let’s not split hairs here.  The media uses the term “frivolous” lawsuits without any regard to specifics, so let’s look at some of the “frivolous” cases.  And in terms of notoriety, let’s start with the McDonald’s coffee case.

     Before I write down one hard fact about the McDonald’s case, I want you to reflect on all the things you have heard about the case itself, how much was awarded, etc.  Do you remember all the negative comments about the woman that filed the suit?  Do you remember all the comments about who would sue over hot coffee?  and then the follow up “logical” responses about isn’t coffee supposed to be hot?  What kind of a crack pot would spill  hot coffee on himself and then think it was McDonald’s fault!!  Do you have it all in your mind about how crazy that case was??  The following are the REAL facts about that case.  There are many places you can go to VERIFY these facts.  You should start at the American Association of Justice website (www.atla.org/pressroom), but you don’t have to end there.  Many people have written on this topic, so don’t just take my blogging for it if you don’t want to.

     The woman that got burned in February 1992 was the 79 year young Stella Liebeck from New Mexico.  She was NOT the driver of the car she was in; rather she was a passenger and the car was being driven by her grandson.  Secondly, the car was NOT moving when the accident happened.  After they bought the coffee, the grandson pulled forward and came to a complete stop so his grandmother could add cream and sugar to her coffee.  The coffee was in a Styrofoam cup.  As Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees, and removed the cap, the coffee spilled towards her and spilled into her lap area.

     Ms. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days.  During that time, she underwent the surgical removal of skin tissue and had skin grafts over the burned areas.  Ms. Liebeck’s doctor said that she had full thickness (3d Degree burns) over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks and genital and groin areas.  The 3d degree burns covered over 6% of her body.

     After “recovering” from her injuries, leaving aside scarring, etc., Ms. Liebeck tried to settle her case with McDonald’s for $20,000, and it refused.  When you hear the $20,000 figure, how much do you think her hospital and doctor bills were?  In any event, McDonald’s said NO!  So a lawsuit was filed against it.  Now, if the case lacked any true legal merit, the court would have thrown the case out.  It did not and it proceeded to trial with jurors from the community.

     What was the evidence the jury heard???  Well, to start, the jury heard that from 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s had documents showing that more than 700 people had complained of burns from its coffee, some of which included 3d degree burns like Ms. Liebeck.  So, McDonald’s knew that its coffee could cause 3d burns in people.  Well, so what!  Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot??  Well, the jury also heard that McDonald’s, based upon a consultant’s advice, kept its coffee between 180-190 degrees fahrenheit to keep its best flavor.  The jury also heard that other establishments that sell coffee keep it at substantially lower temperatures.  The jury also  heard that the coffee in home coffee pots is about 135-140 degrees fahrenheit.   So, McDonald’s kept its coffee 40-55 degrees hotter than what is in your home.  Well, the consultant said it was ok!  That was how to keep the coffee tasting good.   Unfortunately, McDonald’s own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists for any food product served at or above 140 degrees and that McDonald’s coffee, as hot as it was, was NOT FIT FOR CONSUMPTION because it would burn the mouth and throat.  So, although McDonald’s own executive said the coffee was so hot it was unfit, he also told the jury that his company actively ENFORCED the hot temperature and that even though burns would occur, McDonald’s had NO intention of reducing the temperature.    Hmmmmm……

      Well, what else did the jury hear?  Ms. Liebeck’s expert witness in “thermodynamics” testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause 3d degree skin burns in 2-7 SECONDS!  The jury also heard McDonald’s say that its customer bought the coffee on their way to work or home, supposedly waiting to drink it there.  Unfortunately, McDonald’s own research studies showed  that customers like to drink the coffee right away while they are driving.  Go figure.  Well, what was some of McDonald’s defense??  Well they had an “expert witness” that it paid over $15,000 in the case to testify that coffee burns that McDonald’s knew about, including apparently Ms. Liebeck were “statistically insignificant” if you compared the number of complaints to the billion cups of coffee McDonald’s sold.  So, even though there was a live, and BURNED person, some horrifically like Ms.Liebeck behind everyone of those complaints, the jurors concluded that as a company, McDonald’s didn’t attach any importance to those complaints.  So, as the Wall Street Journal reported, jurors heard enough evidence to conclude that McDonald’s had a callous disregard for their coffee drinking customer’s safety.  As the McDonald executive testified, even though they knew about the  bad burns, there are apparently more serious dangers in restaurants.

     So, what did the jury award?  The jury awarded $200,000 in COMPENSATORY  damages, reduced to $160,000 because the jury concluded that Ms. Lieback was 20% at fault too.  The jury also awarded $2.7 million in PUNITIVE damages to punish McDonald’s.  The trial judge later REDUCED the punitive damages to $480,000, even though the trial JUDGE called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous and willful.  So, Ms. Liebeck’s net award was $640,000, but there was a settlement reached after the trial. 

      After hearing all that, was Ms. Liebeck’s claim “frivolous?”   Could she have possibly known that the coffee in her cup was about 40 degrees hotter than what she makes at home??  How about McDonald’s corporate attitude?   As a side note, after the trial, an investigation revealed that the coffee temperature at the local Albuquerque McDonald’s was dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.  No word yet whether any complaints about the flavor of the coffee changing because of that.

      Moving forward, whenever you hear someone comment about a frivolous lawsuit, challenge them for the specifics.  What was the actual name of the person that filed the suit?  In what county and in what state was it filed?  Many crazy urban legends of phony claims circulate over the internet, all lacking the hallmark indicia of truthfulness:  factual citations that can be checked and verified.   Think about it for a minute.  If it was a frivolous case, it had to have been filed at the clerk’s office in some courthouse in some county in some state.  How come that information never seems to surface.  Simple, because the urban legends are baloney.  And if they weren’t, then what are the court numbers of those cases and let’s all go look together to get the REAL facts, not myth. 

     While it is easy to not take some of this too seriously, should we?  Do those that circulate phony urban legend tales of frivolous claims have some other agenda??  Do you think all of that “DISINFORMATION”  is affecting the way people think about people that file lawsuits???  I think that is exactly what the myth mongers want to do.  The people that will really hurt are the ones that need jurors to know the TRUTH about the MYTHS so jurors are NOT predisposed to thinking that all lawsuits are baseless. 

     Our civil jury system to resolve disputes is a VALUABLE right!!  Everyone should do their job to preserve a system and its integrity that they may need one day themselves.  Don’t spread the MYTH.  Seek the truth, and spread that fact.   There are many other MYTHS being spread about  medical malpractice, insurance premiums for doctors, runaway juries, excessive attorney fees, etc.  When you hear these stories, listen carefully.  The devil is in the details, and details are what those stories usually lack.

Good luck!