<\/p>\n
It was the 1994 jury verdict that was used as a justification for twenty years of \u201ctort reform\u201d. Special interest groups used the McDonald\u2019s hot coffee jury verdict to justify changes in our legal system — changes supposedly needed to stop \u201crunaway juries\u201d. \u00a0But was the McDonald\u2019s jury really a \u201crunaway jury\u201d?\u00a0 Did McDonald\u2019s actually deserve to be punished?\u00a0 It\u2019s time to re-examine the facts behind the McDonald\u2019s coffee case.<\/p>\n
In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald\u2019s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald\u2019s and a jury awarded her $200,000 for her injuries and assessed a punitive damages penalty of $2.4 million against McDonald’s.<\/p>\n
Politicians and special interest groups insisted that the jury verdict was a sign that the sky was falling due to \u201crunaway juries\u201d.\u00a0 They argued that the verdict made no sense because coffee is supposed to be hot, (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It was the 1994 jury verdict that was used as a justification for twenty years of \u201ctort reform\u201d. Special interest groups used the McDonald\u2019s hot coffee jury verdict to justify changes in our legal system — changes supposedly needed…<\/span><\/p>\n