The case of Stella Liebeck, often cited as one of the most frivolous lawsuits, is widely misunderstood. On February 27, 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While sitting in a parked car, she attempted to open the lid of the coffee cup, which was held between her knees.
Unfortunately, the coffee spilled on her lap, resulting in third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days and underwent skin grafting, leading to permanent disfigurement and partial disability for two years.
Liebeck sued McDonald’s for gross negligence, arguing that the coffee was “unreasonably dangerous.” The trial revealed that McDonald’s served coffee at temperatures between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit, much higher than the industry norm. Expert testimony showed that coffee at this temperature could cause third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. Additionally, McDonald’s internal documents showed that between 1982 and 1992, the company received over 700 reports of burns from their coffee.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced by 20% to $160,000 due to her partial negligence. They also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, based on two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee revenue. However, the judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, bringing the total to $640,000. The case was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount, likely less than $600,000. Despite public perception, Liebeck originally sought only $20,000 to cover her medical bills and lost income, and it was the jury, not Liebeck, that awarded the higher sum.
The Bigbee Phone Booth Case: A Forgotten Detail
In 1974, Charles Bigbee was using a public phone booth in Los Angeles when a car, driven by an allegedly drunk driver, crashed into the booth. Bigbee was trapped inside due to a malfunctioning door, leading to severe injuries, including the amputation of his right leg above the knee. The phone booth had been placed in a dangerous location, and a previous incident had already destroyed a booth at the same spot. However, when the phone company replaced the booth, they did not include a guardrail or warning signs.
Bigbee sued multiple parties, including the phone company, the driver, and the racetrack that allegedly served alcohol to the driver. President Ronald Reagan later used this case to highlight the supposed absurdity of the American tort system, omitting crucial details about the phone booth’s faulty door and its dangerous placement. Bigbee settled for $25,000, with the driver and racetrack vendors each paying half. Despite Reagan’s portrayal, the case involved significant negligence and life-altering injuries.
Dr. Lawrence Crosby’s Case: Misjudged and Misunderstood
In 2015, Dr. Lawrence Crosby, a doctoral student, was repairing his car when a woman mistakenly believed he was stealing it. She followed him and called the police, reporting that a black man in a hoodie was stealing a car. When Crosby, who was the car’s owner, was stopped by police, he complied by exiting the vehicle with his hands up. However, police officers tackled him, mistaking his actions for resistance.
Crosby was arrested and charged with resisting arrest, despite the fact that he had committed no crime. A judge later dismissed the charges, and Crosby filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Evanston, Illinois, for false arrest and excessive force. In 2019, the city settled the case for $1.25 million. The headline that a man won $1.25 million after stealing his own car fails to capture the racial bias and police brutality that Crosby endured.
The Aunt Who Sued Her Nephew: Legal Nuance in Insurance Law
Jennifer Connell, dubbed the “aunt from hell,” sued her 12-year-old nephew for $127,000 after he broke her wrist during an enthusiastic hug. This case was widely mocked, but the true story is more complex. Connell initially sought compensation through her nephew’s parents’ homeowner’s insurance. However, Connecticut law required her to sue the person who caused her injury—her nephew—to access the insurance policy.
Although the lawsuit appeared ridiculous, Connell was following legal advice and trying to cover her medical expenses. The jury ultimately awarded her nothing, but the case highlights the complexities of insurance law and the legal standards applied to minors in personal injury cases.
These cases, often sensationalized as frivolous, reveal deeper legal nuances and serious consequences that are often overlooked in public discourse.
