Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912.{{citation needed|date=April 2025}} On February 27, 1992, aged 79, 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.{{cite news |last1=Gerlin |first1=Andrea |title=Spilled coffee worth $2.9-million |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/tampa-bay-times-spilled-coffee-worth-2/170128312/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Tampa Bay Times |date=September 2, 1994 |page=7A |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}} She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?playlistId=100000002148738 |title=Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media |date=2013-10-21 |type=MP4 |publisher=The New York Times |access-date=2013-10-26}} In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.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 Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.{{cite journal |last1=Gerlin |first1=Andrea |date=1994-09-01 |title=A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million |url=http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=The Wall Street Journal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923195353/http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf |archive-date=2015-09-23 |access-date=2015-06-18}}{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|p=268}}

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.{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|p=268}} She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting.{{cite news |last1=Kaufman |first1=Matthew |title=Coffee case a hot topic; facts cool debate |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/hartford-courant-coffee-case-a-hot-topic/170129074/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Hartford Courant |date=April 10, 1995 |page=A5 |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}} During this period, Liebeck lost {{convert|20|lb|kg}}, nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to {{convert|83|lb|kg}}.{{cite news |title=Are Lawyers Burning America? |url=https://www.newsweek.com/are-lawyers-burning-america-180680 |access-date=April 13, 2025 |work=Newsweek |date=March 13, 2010}} After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.{{cite web |author=FindLaw's team of legal writers |title=The McDonald's Coffee Cup Case: Separating McFacts From McFiction |url=https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html |website=Findlaw}} Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.{{cite book |last1=Horsey |first1=Kirsty |last2=Rackley |first2=Erika |title=Tort Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wZKcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA356 |date=2013-06-18 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-966189-3 |pages=356–}}{{sfn|Haltom|McCann|2009|pp=186ff}}

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 loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.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) McDonald's offered only $800.{{cite news |title=Plaintiff's daughter says public has wrong perception of mother |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-sun-plaintiffs-daughter-says-public/170128587/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Jonesboro Sun |agency=Associated Press |date=April 15, 1995 |page=12C |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}}{{Cite web |title=The McDonald's Hot Coffee Case |url=https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts |access-date=2022-04-15 |website=www.caoc.org}}

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.

The trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, [https://web.archive.org/web/20161030205148/http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-202-CV-9302419 docket entry from nmcourts.com]{{Full citation needed|date=March 2020}} During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at {{convert|180|-|190|F|C}}. Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than {{convert|140|F}}, 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 {{convert|190|F}} coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and {{convert|180|F}} coffee may produce such burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to {{convert|160|F}} 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.{{Cite web |date=2016-06-13 |title=Liebeck v. McDonald's |url=https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ |access-date=2022-05-15 |website=www.tortmuseum.org |language=en-US}}

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.{{Cite web |url=https://www.gtla.org/index.cfm?pg=McDsScaldingCoffee |title=McDsScaldingCoffee |website=www.gtla.org}} 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.

Other documents showed that, from 1982 to 1992, McDonald's 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. 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 {{convert|130|°F}} 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.{{sfn|Nader|Smith|1996|pp=270–272}}

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. 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.

The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000,{{cite news |last1=Major Holmes |first1=Sue |title=Award in scalding case reduced |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/concord-monitor-award-in-scalding-case-r/170128719/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Concord Monitor |agency=Associated Press |date=September 15, 1994 |page=A10 |via=Newspapers.com}} {{free access}} 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. 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.{{cite book |title=Document 00689724 - McDonalds scalding: woman burned by hot coffee gets $2.9 million |date=1994-08-18 |publisher=Associated Press |location=Albuquerque}}

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.{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=701}}{{cite journal|last1=McCann|first1=Michael|first2=William|last2=Haltom|first3=Anne|last3=Bloom|title=Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon.|journal=U. Miami L. Rev.|volume=56|year=2001|issue=113|url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umialr56&div=13&id=&page=}}{{cite journal|first1=Neil|last1=Malhotra|title=An Empirical Analysis of “Tort Tales”: How Cultural Memes Influence Attitudes on Tort Reform|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/abs/an-empirical-analysis-of-tort-tales/02ED7989D10F8A3075B0B79ADACD26DF|journal=Journal of Law and Courts|date=21 October 2022|issn=2164-6570|pages=149–166|volume=3|issue=1|doi=10.1086/679018|url-access=subscription}} ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".{{cite web |last1=Pearel |first1=Lauren |title='I'm Being Sued for WHAT?' |url=https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086 |website=ABC News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150327160920/http://abcnews.go.com:80/TheLaw/story?id=3121086 |archive-date=2015-03-27 |date=2007-05-02 |url-status=dead}} The legal commentator Jonathan Turley called it "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".{{cite web |last1=Levin |first1=Myron |title=Legal Urban Legends Hold Sway {{!}} Tall tales of outrageous jury awards have helped bolster business-led campaigns to overhaul the civil justice system. |url=http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html |website=www.kentlaw.edu |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303195637/http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Frivolous_Suits.html |archive-date=2012-03-03 |date=2005-08-14 |url-status=unfit}} 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.

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.{{cite web |url=http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2004/08/trial-lawyerjohn-edwards-propaganda-at-kos.html |title=Trial lawyer propaganda at kos |access-date=2008-05-14 |last=Bainbridge |first=Stephen |date=2004-08-01 |format=revised relocated blog entry |author-link=Stephen Bainbridge}}){{cite journal |last=Sebok |first=Anthony J. |title=Dispatches from the Tort Wars |journal=Texas Law Review |date=November 2006 |volume=85 |pages=1509–1510}}{{cite web |last1=Frank |first1=Ted |author-link1=Ted Frank |title=Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case |url=https://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/ |website=Overlawyered |date=2005-10-20}} They state that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury.

Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, aged 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.{{cite news |url=http://www.abqjournal.com/upfront/061054231171upfront01-06-09.htm |title=Student Measured Heat in Coffee Case |last=Smith |first=Toby |newspaper=Albuquerque Journal |date=2009-01-06 |access-date=2015-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015064426/http://www.abqjournal.com/upfront/061054231171upfront01-06-09.htm |archive-date=October 15, 2015}}

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 {{convert|179|°F|°C|abbr=on}} hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous".{{cite web |title=Angelina and Jack McMahon, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bunn-O-Matic Corporation, James River Paper Company, and Wincup Holdings, L.P., Defendants-Appellees. |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1365042.html |website=Findlaw |date=1998-07-02}} 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.{{cite web |author1=England and Wales High Court |author-link1=High Court of Justice |title=Bogle & Ors v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. |url=http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html |website=www.bailii.org |at=33 |language=en-UK |date=2002-03-25}}

Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A,{{cite news |url=http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-your-morning-cup-of-joe%3F-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test. |last=Hurtado |first=Linda |title=Local woman sues National Franchise over coffee |date=2011-02-12 |access-date=2013-03-22 |work=ABC Action News |publisher=The E.W. Scripps Co. |archive-date=2011-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104205726/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-your-morning-cup-of-joe?-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test. |url-status=dead}} Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King,{{cite news |url=http://www.3news.co.nz/Woman-burned-by-hot-coffee-sues-Burger-King/tabid/417/articleID/282530/Default.aspx |work=3 News NZ |title=Burned woman sues Burger King |date=2012-01-10 |access-date=2013-01-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113071432/http://www.3news.co.nz/Woman-burned-by-hot-coffee-sues-Burger-King/tabid/417/articleID/282530/Default.aspx |archive-date=2013-11-13 |url-status=dead}} hospitals,{{cite news |url=http://wvrecord.com/news/180147-womans-estate-sues-over-hot-coffee?doing_wp_cron=1363993663.9430639743804931640625 |title=Woman's estate sues over hot coffee |last=O'Brien |first=John |date=2006-06-06 |access-date=2013-03-22 |work=The West Virginia Record |publisher=Madison County Record, Inc}} and McDonald's{{cite news |url=http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120323/NEWS07/120329881/mcdonalds-hit-with-2-hot-coffee-lawsuits |title=McDonald's hit with 2 hot-coffee lawsuits |last=Behme |first=Todd J. |date=2012-03-23 |access-date=2013-04-21 |publisher=Crain's Chicago Business}} have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. There have also been lawsuits over injuries from other hot liquids.{{cite news |last=Burke |first=Minyvonne |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-3-year-old-severely-burned-wawa-hot-water-gets-n1189891 |title=Family of 3-year-old severely burned at Wawa by hot water gets $3 million settlement |date=2020-04-22 |work=NBC News}} 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.{{cite news |last=York |first=Michael |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/05/27/child-scalded-in-sink-to-get-15-million/f1fee38f-6f07-413c-a05a-21de9e89520f/ |title=Child Scalded In Sink To Get $15 Million |date=1992-05-27 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

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.{{Cite web |url=https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-chicken-mcnugget-lawsuit-115737cffc47c539e3aed92daad264a4 |title=McDonald's found liable for hot Chicken McNugget that burned girl |date=2023-05-12 |publisher=AP News |access-date=2023-05-14}} 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.{{cite web |title=Jury awards Florida girl burned by McDonald’s Chicken McNugget $800,000 in damages |url=https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-chicken-mcnugget-lawsuit-girl-burned-8a21d966b3db48089782352138538cd8 |publisher=AP News |access-date=2023-07-21}}

According to a 2007 report, McDonald's had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at {{convert|176|–|194|F|C}},{{cite web |title=Huntingdon & St Ives latest news - Burger chain sued after boy's ordeal |url=http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 |website=www.cambridge-news.co.uk |access-date=2008-05-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515122340/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 |archive-date=2009-05-15 |date=2007-06-22}} 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).{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=724}} However, in 2013, the New York Times reported that McDonald's had lowered its service temperature to {{convert|170|–|180|F|C}}. 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.{{sfn|Greenlee|1997|p=724}} Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at {{convert|175|–|185|F|C}}, and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is {{convert|160|–|185|F|C}}.{{cn|date=August 2022}}

{{Main|Hot Coffee (film)}}

On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered a documentary about tort reform problems, Hot Coffee.{{cite news |last1=Schwartz |first1=John |title=Documentary Gives Hot Issue Caffeinated Jolt |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/arts/television/hbo-to-show-hot-coffee-susan-saladoffs-first-film.html |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=The New York Times |date=June 24, 2011}} 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.{{cite news |last1=Debruge |first1=Peter |title=Hot Coffee |url=https://variety.com/2011/film/markets-festivals/hot-coffee-1117944449/ |access-date=April 12, 2025 |work=Variety |date=January 30, 2011}}

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.{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?playlistId=100000002148738 |title=Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media |date=2013-10-21 |type=MP4 |publisher=The New York Times |access-date=2013-10-26}}{{cite news |last=Stout |first=Hilary |date=2013-10-21 |title=Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore |newspaper=The New York Times |department=Retro Report |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=2013-10-26}} The New York Times noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide, and that McDonald's, rather than Liebeck, was portrayed as the victim.{{cite AV media |title=Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media |url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html |type=MP4 |publisher=The New York Times |date=2013-10-21 |time=6:45–11:35}} Within a month, the Retro Report video had more than one million views and had triggered debate in the online comments.{{cite news |last=Bertram |first=Bonnie |date=2013-10-25 |title=Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee |newspaper=The New York Times |department=Retro Report |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/booming/storm-still-brews-over-scalding-coffee.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=2013-10-26}}

• Compensation culture
• McDonald's legal cases
• "The Postponement" and "The Maestro" — Seinfeld episodes which include a parody of the case

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite journal |last=Greenlee |first=Mark B. |year=1997 |title=Kramer v. Java World: Images, Issues, and Idols in the Debate over Tort Reform |journal=Capital University Law Review |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=701–738}}
• {{cite book |last1=Haltom |first1=William |last2=McCann |first2=Michael |year=2009 |orig-year=2004 |title=Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-31469-3}}
• {{cite book |last1=Nader |first1=Ralph |author1-link=Ralph Nader |last2=Smith |first2=Wesley J. |year=1996 |title=No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America |location=New York |publisher=Random House |isbn=978-0-679-42972-2}}

• {{cite journal |last=Rutherford |first=Denney G. |title=Lessons from Liebeck: QSRs Cool the Coffee |journal=Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly |volume=39 |issue=3 |year=1998 |pages=72–75 |issn=0010-8804 |doi=10.1177/001088049803900314 |s2cid=154928258}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Enghagen |first1=Linda K. |last2=Gilardi |first2=Anthony |title=Putting things in perspective: McDonald's and the $2.9-million cup of coffee |journal=Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly |volume=43 |issue=3 |year=2002 |pages=53–60 |issn=0010-8804 |doi=10.1016/S0010-8804(02)80018-0}}

• [http://www.abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.html The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ ] at Abnormal Use
• [http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/do_you_know_the_full_story The Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Used it to Promote Tort Reform?] – video report by Democracy Now!
• [https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/ American Museum of Tort Law, Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The Hot Coffee Case]
• [https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts Consumer Attorneys of California, The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case]

{{United States tort case law}}

{{McDonald's}}

{{Portal bar|Coffee|Drink|Law|New Mexico|United States|1990s}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Restaurants}}

Category:1994 in New Mexico

Category:1994 in United States case law

Category:Coffee preparation

Category:Food safety in the United States

Category:History of Albuquerque, New Mexico

Category:McDonald's litigation

Category:New Mexico state case law

Category:United States consumer protection case law

Category:United States tort case law