The Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by a customer that Starbucks was liable for her injuries resulting from her spilling hot tea on her legs. The lawsuit argued that the "double cupping" of her large tea made the cup unstable, and caused it to spill. The Second Circuit approved the trial court's dismissal of the case, because Rachael Moltner failed to present evidence that demonstrated Starbucks serving of the tea was negligent.
The Stella Liebeck suit against McDonald's in 1992 made the too-hot food lawsuit infamous, where Liebeck, 78, was initially awarded $3 million for her injures. She suffered third-degree burns and required skin grafts. The jury award was reduced to $640,000, and the case settled out-of-court for less than $600,000.
During the Liebeck case, documents indicated that she attempted to settle the case at first for $20,000 and McDonald's refused. Another fact ignored by much of the media coverage, was that in 1992, McDonald's generated $500,000,000 per year in coffee sales alone, and the jury verdict amount was for punitive damages due to McDonald's conduct during the trial.
The case of Rachel Moltner is remarkably similar, as she is also an elderly woman who spilled hot liquid on her legs, and the spill caused burns that, like Liebeck, required skin grafts.
The Difficulty with Hot Food Cases
Basic negligence law involves a duty (generally to protect someone from something), a breach of the duty, an injury and damages resulting from the injury. Many of these cases are filed every year (McDonald's admitted that they alone had been sued over 700 times in the ten years preceding the Liebeck case.), but most don't survive the initial pleading stage.
The cases tend to be fact specific. Some courts find there is no duty owed by the restaurant to secure the cups of hot liquid. Others may find that a duty exists, but the restaurant has met the duty by placing lids on the cups. Often, as here, the court finds it was an accident.
Coffee is supposed to be hot, isn't it?
One reason why courts are resistant to allowing these cases to proceed is the danger of hot coffee or tea is presumed. The average person knows that water is heated to near boiling to brew coffee, so one needs to be careful of the resulting beverage. And coffee and tea are best served hot. Courts have noted that where a product by its very nature has a dangerous attribute, liability is imposed only when the product has an attribute not reasonably contemplated by the purchaser or is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.
To succeed with a negligence action, plaintiffs need to show that there was a duty owed to them by someone, that there was a breach of that duty, they suffered an injury because of the breach and the injury is compensable. In some cases, this is straightforward However, in more challenging cases, negligence can be very difficult to determine.
If you have suffered injuries as a result of someone else's negligence, you may be able to obtain compensation for your injuries. The best way to determine this is to speak with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney, who can review your facts and advise you on your best legal options.
