Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Twenty Years After Stella Liebeck, Plaintiffs Are Still Suing McDonald’s Over Hot Coffee

By Andy Beilfuss on January 15, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Hot_CoffeeIn 1994, one of the most famous civil verdicts in American history was rendered.  On August 18th of that year, a New Mexico jury awarded 81-year-old Stella Liebeck nearly $2.9 million in damages after she was burned by McDonald’s coffee that had spilled in her lap.  The case sent shockwaves through the legal community, became a poster child for tort reform, and continues to be a running pop-culture joke even now, two decades later.

But believe it or not, plaintiffs are still suing the fast-food giant over the temperature of its coffee.  In a recent New York case, Khanimov v. McDonald’s Corporation, 2014 WL 5461641 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2014), the plaintiff sued both McDonald’s and the franchisee who owned and operated the restaurant.  The plaintiff claimed that he slipped and fell at a Brooklyn McDonald’s and was burned by hot coffee that he had just been served.  He alleged that the coffee was unreasonably hot and therefore dangerous.  Initially, the trial court dismissed the suit.  

But the Appellate Division reinstated the plaintiff’s hot-coffee claim.  As the court explained, “[u]nder New York  law, a defendant may properly be held liable for the personal injuries caused by the service of a beverage that, because of its excessive temperature, was unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, and the drinking or other use of which presented a danger that was not reasonably contemplated by the consumer” (citations omitted).  In this case, the Appellate Division concluded that there was conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the coffee was unreasonably hot, and sent the case back for trial on that issue.  Thus, Liebeck’s legacy lives on, at least in New York state court.[1]

Interestingly, the Liebeck case is still hotly debated (pun intended) by legal experts, media scholars, and pop-culture historians alike.  The New York Times 2013 video titled, “Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The Big Burn,” http://youtu.be/pCkL9UlmCOE, attempts to debunk what it characterizes as certain misconceptions about the case.  As of this writing the 12-minute video has been viewed more than 2.7 million times on YouTube.  HBO has also released a feature-length documentary about the case, titled Hot Coffee, which purports to “reveal[] what really happened to Stella Liebeck, … how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end.”  The official website for the film is www.hotcoffeethemovie.com.

 


[1] McDonald’s Corporation was not a party to the appeal.

 

Photo courtesy of Victor Camilo via Creative Commons

Photo of Andy Beilfuss Andy Beilfuss

Andy Beilfuss is a partner in Quarles & Brady LLP’s Commercial Litigation and Franchise and Distribution Industry Groups. His national practice focuses primarily on representing franchisors, manufacturers and marketers of products and services.

Read more about Andy BeilfussEmailAndrew's Linkedin ProfileAndrew's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Franchise Law Insider
  • Organization:
    Quarles & Brady LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo