Have you heard of the "McDonald's coffee" personal injury case? (Or "hot coffee lawsuit" as it's sometimes known?)

This was a 1992 American legal case in which a McDonald's customer named Stella Liebeck spilt coffee on herself and then sued the fast food chain for damages.

It was widely publicised and gained notoriety as an example of frivolous litigation – the notion that the USA was a country where unscrupulous lawyers worked with cranks, time-wasters and entitled consumers to squeeze money out of businesses.

The hot coffee case was dubbed "the poster child of excessive lawsuits" by ABC News and was well-known enough to be parodied in an episode of Seinfeld. And in 2017, it spawned an HBO documentary named Hot Coffee.

But is it fair to see Liebeck and her lawyer as "jackpot justice-oriented", or was this a case where personal injury was given the gravity it deserved? Take a look at what unfolded and see what you think.

The myths and reality of the case

This case has passed into mainstream knowledge but, in the process, some of the details have become distorted.

A common version of the story goes like this. A woman bought a cup of coffee from a branch of McDonald's and spilt it on her lap while driving. Rather than taking the blame for this mishap, she pinned responsibility on McDonald's – who, after all, had done nothing more than serve her a cup of coffee. She saw dollar signs and decided to squeeze the corporation for damages. Off the back of this trivial and trumped-up case, she won a million dollars.

The established version of events paints a very different picture. This is not only because the commonly told version distorts a number of details. It's also because the established version leads us to a different conclusion. Rather than this being a case of an entitled consumer playing the blame game, it suggests that this was a valid personal injury claim made by someone who had suffered because of someone else's actions.

The official narrative is as follows. 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-through. Contrary to popular belief, she wasn't driving but was in the passenger seat with her grandson at the wheel. He had parked up so his grandmother could add cream and sugar to her coffee. When she took the lid off, the whole cup of coffee spilt on her lap. She was wearing cotton tracksuit bottoms that soaked up the coffee.

At this point in the story, you might still think that Liebeck was suing McDonald's as a money-spinner. In what way was McDonald's to blame for a customer clumsily taking off a coffee cup lid?

Things become clearer when you learn that Liebeck suffered full-thickness (or "third-degree") burns around her pelvis. These are burns that won't heal without medical attention, so Liebeck was taken to hospital. She was there for eight days and underwent skin grafting. Once discharged, she was looked after by her daughter for three weeks. Liebeck was permanently disfigured by the spill and was partially disabled for two years.

The purpose of Liebeck's lawsuit was to get McDonald's to cover her medical expenses – not, as is commonly thought, to make a quick buck. Her requested settlement of $20,000 was refused. Following this refusal, her lawyers decided to bring a claim of gross negligence against McDonald's.

Even if you're now feeling sympathetic towards Liebeck on account of her injury, you might still think it's a bit rich to pin the blame on McDonald's.

The key piece of information here is that the coffee was hot enough to send her to hospital and cause disfigurement. This wasn't a burn that could be treated with a damp cloth and a dose of paracetamol – it was one that caused physical pain and emotional turbulence.

Liebeck's lawyers centred their argument on the temperature of McDonald's coffee, which was served at 82-88 °C – not just at the drive-through visited by Liebeck, but in all its chains as a matter of course. This, they argued, was hotter than coffee at other chain restaurants. What's more, over 700 people had complained to McDonald's after being scalded by its coffee.

Given that the coffee was unusually hot and led to Liebeck being hospitalised, her lawyers argued that McDonald's should take the lion's share of responsibility. The jury decided that McDonald's was 80% responsible for Liebeck's injury.

And as for the million dollars she pocketed – she was in fact awarded $640,000 in damages. According to Liebeck's daughter, these damages were used to pay for a live-in nurse. She also said that her mother had "no quality of life" after the double punch of the accident and the subsequent court case.

Whatever you think about the jury's verdict and the details of the settlement, it's clear that there's more to this story than pure greed and manipulation of the legal system.

The moral of the story?

As we mentioned at the top, the Liebeck case became a byword for frivolous litigation. In ABC News's article, it keeps company with lawsuits like the so-called "$54 million pants" case and a woman suing an open-air mall after receiving unwanted attention from a squirrel.

But when you take into account the severity of Liebeck's injuries and the restaurant chain's practice of serving scaldingly hot coffee, the case can be seen instead as an example of the US justice system giving a personal injury claim the gravity it deserved.

Here at Milners, we have a proven track record in winning compensation for personal injury claims on a 'no win, no fee' basis. These have ranged from workplace accidents to industrial diseases, from whiplash to clinical negligence. We pride ourselves on being plain-speaking, no-nonsense and approachable. If you're looking for representation, please reach out to Giles Ward on 0113 245 0852 or email: giles.ward@milnerslaw.com.