Our Civil Justice System Works

Debunking the myth that runaway juries are jeopardizing our civil justice system.

There seems to be a general notion spreading in society, perpetuated by opponents of our civil justice system, that runaway juries are jeopardizing that system. This idea is pure myth. Yet, this myth is spread through sensational accounts of jury awards of damages in cases which, on their face, sound outrageous.

The public is being deceived into believing that juries render “crazy” verdicts. Examples of these so-called “crazy” verdicts include cases like the ones in which the jury awarded millions to someone who smoked for 30 years and contracted cancer, or to a woman who was burned when she placed a cup of hot coffee between her legs.

However, when you look at the facts of any case, it is clear that juries can and do distinguish between harm caused through an individual's own fault, and harm caused through fault of another. Jury awards, even in the millions, time and again are shown to be reasonable and fair compensation to the injured party, or punishment of the responsible party. Even in the cases which sound outrageous, the truth always shows that the jury's decision was just.

Debunking the Myth: The case of McDonald's scalding coffee

If you are not convinced that the idea that juries render “crazy” verdicts is pure myth, just take a closer look. For example, if you listen to a one-sided account of the jury awarding millions to the lady who put McDonald's hot coffee between her legs, you can't help but think the jury was crazy. However, when you hear the facts in that case, which the jury heard, it is clear that the jury's award was responsible and measured.

After you look at the facts, it is clear our jury system works. Look at the facts and decide if you think the jury did the right thing. Here are a few:

• The lady who was burned by the coffee, Stella Leibeck, was not driving the car with coffee between her legs.

Did you know that the coffee was spilled when Stella Leibeck had ordered coffee at the drive-thru window as a passenger in her grandson's car (contrary to general accounts that she was herself the driver)? Her grandson pulled forward after receiving the order and stopped to allow his grandmother to put cream and sugar in her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the lid. As she removed the lid the entire contents spilled into her lap. The sweatpants she was wearing absorbed the coffee and she suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including inner thighs, perinium, buttocks, genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days during which time she underwent skin grafting.

• Leibeck attempted to settle with McDonald's for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.
• McDonald's knew its coffee was dangerously hot.

Did you know that more than 700 claims by people burned by McDonald's coffee had been filed? Some of those involved third-degree burns similar to Leibeck's.

• McDonald's chose to keep its coffee at a temperature of 185-190 degrees for optimum taste, despite knowledge that burns could result, and despite the fact that reducing the temperature to 155 degrees, similar to other fast food restaurants, would substantially reduce the risk of burns.
• McDonald's stated reason for keeping the coffee so hot conflicted with what McDonalds' knew to be consumer practice.

Did you know McDonald's asserted they kept the coffee at 185-190 degrees because people purchase coffee to take to work or to home and consume it there? However, the record showed that McDonald's own research of consumer habits showed that coffee was purchased to be consumed immediately while driving.

• The jury awarded Stella Leibeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, and reduced the amount to $160,000 because they felt Ms. Leibeck was partially at fault for spilling her coffee.
• The jury awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonalds for knowingly taking the risk of burning people which McDonald's knew were likely to immediately consume coffee that was dangerously hot.
• The jury calculated the punitive award of 2.7 million based on two-days sales of McDonald's coffee.
• The punitive award was reduced by the trial court to 3- times the compensatory damages, $480,0000, though the trial court found McDonald's conduct to be willful, callous and reckless.

Whenever I relay the facts of “the McDonald's coffee case,” people are always surprised at how much the media report left out.

Far from being a “runaway jury” sticking it to big business, this jury was reasonable and evenhanded. Stella Leibeck was held responsible for her conduct, and so was McDonald's. Two-days coffee sales was a fair punishment to ensure that McDonald's would not continue to callously risk harming people.

So when you hear accounts of jury verdicts that sound “crazy,” remember there are facts you haven't heard. Don't believe the myth that jury verdicts are jeopardizing our civil justice system. The jury system works.

Product Recalls

• McDonald's is recalling about 100,000 bobble head figurines. The paint on some of the figurines contains excess levels of lead. The lead, if ingested over time, may present a lead poisoning hazard.
• Huffy is recalling about 70,000 portable basketball systems. The basketball hoops can have a sharp protruding bolt on the player's side of the pole that can cause serious leg or body lacerations to consumers.
• Arctic Cat, Inc. is recalling about 45,000 all-terrain vehicles. The ball joints on the front suspension of these ATV's can fail, causing loss of control and a potential serious injury or death to the rider.