Dating all the way back to February 27th, 1992, a personal injury lawsuit was brought against the McDonald's Corporation by a certain Mrs. Liebeck. While Mrs. Liebeck was getting ready to enjoy a cup of hot coffee, she placed it between her knees. As she pried open the lid of the coffee and in doing so burned her upper thigh region and burnt the skin of her lap. The coffee was so hot, that the temperature of it had reached a staggering 170 degrees. At this temperature, Mrs. Liebeck suffered second and third degree burns. So bad in fact that she needed skin grafts and had to have her daughter stay with her to recuperate. It took her 3 weeks to recuperate from the accident.

What Mrs. Liebeck did, was ask for 2,000 USD for compensation, and all she got was 800 USD. So, she took matters into her own hands and hired a lawyer to help her sue the company (although she was not sure she wanted to even sue at the time). But, she wanted a bit more compensation than she received. The lawyer offered the corporation 300,000 USD for them to settle the debacle. But, McDonald's didn't take it.

McDonald's had heard 700 complaints within ten years of serving the coffee. all complaints said that the temperature was too hot. But they wouldn't turn it down. This was apparently a trivial amount to the corporation. Mrs. Liebert had eye witnesses to the coffee spill. She also had her doctor explain to the jury that it only took 3.5 seconds for the coffee to create third degree burns at the temperature of 107 degrees.

In the end, Mrs. Liebert received 200,000 USD and as punitive punishment to the company, McDonald's had to pay up 2.7 million dollars. That takes a chunk of three days worth of McDonald's coffee profits. In the end, McDonald's lost the case. But the inevitable truth is that we will still drink their coffee. That's expected. What Mrs. Liebert did accomplish, was getting everyone's coffee cooled down to where it won't actually cause us to undergo skin grafts. Big thanks should be given to the civil justice system and Mrs. Liebert. You did work in our favor.

So, how do we compare this trial to tort reform? Do we actually need it? It's a give and take world. Most would argue after reading this and seeing that there was something done in this civil case that, no, we don't need it and all law offices agree.