Law School Casework
Active
Advanced ~6h

Liebeck v. McDonald's: Trial Prep

Albuquerque, 1994. Your 79-year-old client suffered third-degree burns from 190°F coffee. Take it to verdict.

Progress25% • due Trial: Aug 8, 1994

The situation

You are lead counsel for Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother who suffered third-degree burns over 6% of her body — including her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks — when a cup of McDonald's coffee spilled in her grandson's parked Ford Probe. She spent 8 days in the hospital, underwent skin grafts, and incurred ~$10,500 in medical bills. You sent a demand letter for $20,000 to cover medicals and lost income. McDonald's countered with $800. Mediation failed at $225,000. Trial begins Monday in Bernalillo County District Court before Judge Robert Scott. Your job: prove McDonald's served coffee at a defectively dangerous temperature, knew it caused burns (700+ prior complaints), and acted with conscious disregard sufficient for punitive damages.

Context

  • McDonald's Operations Manual mandates holding coffee at 180–190°F — 30–40°F hotter than home coffee makers.
  • Discovery produced 700+ prior burn complaints between 1982–1992, including infants and other third-degree cases.
  • McDonald's quality assurance manager Christopher Appleton testified coffee at this temperature is 'not fit for consumption' as served.
  • Defense will argue contributory negligence: Liebeck held the cup between her knees and removed the lid herself.
  • New Mexico is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction — any fault assigned to Liebeck reduces recovery proportionally.
  • Punitive damages in NM require clear and convincing evidence of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Your objectives

  • Build a products liability theory under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
  • Establish McDonald's actual knowledge of the burn risk to support punitives.
  • Neutralize the contributory negligence defense with jury-ready framing.
  • Prepare witness examinations: client, treating physician, thermodynamics expert, and the McDonald's QA witness.
  • Draft a closing that ties medical horror to corporate indifference without alienating the jury.

Phases

  1. Case theory & pleadings

    Lock complaint, theory of liability, and damages model.

  2. Discovery & depositions

    Depose McDonald's QA, request the 700 prior complaints, retain experts.

  3. Mediation & motions

    Now

    Failed mediation at $225K. Brief motions in limine.

  4. Trial — liability phase

    Voir dire, openings, plaintiff's case in chief.

  5. Trial — damages & closing

    Medical proof, punitive evidence, closing argument.

Tasks

  • File complaint: negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty
    Mar 1994
  • Depose Christopher Appleton (McDonald's QA Manager)
    Jun 1994
  • Retain Dr. Charles Baxter (burn expert, Parkland)
    Jun 1994
  • Draft motion in limine to admit 700 prior complaints under Rule 404(b)
    Aug 1, 1994
  • Prepare Stella Liebeck for direct examination
    Aug 5, 1994
  • Finalize jury instructions on punitive damages
    Aug 6, 1994
  • Rehearse opening statement (15 min target)
    Aug 7, 1994
  • Build demonstrative: temperature vs. burn-time chart
    Aug 7, 1994

Inbox for this scenario

Open inbox
SL

Stella Liebeck · Your client

Jul 28, 1994

Are we sure about going to trial?

Mr. Morgan, I keep thinking about the mediation. $225,000 was more money than I've ever seen. My daughter says we should take what McDonald's offers next. But I want them to lower the temperature. Tell me honestly — can we win?

High
TM

Tracy McGee · Defense Counsel, Wright & McGee

Jul 30, 1994

Re: Final settlement posture

Counselor, our client's position is unchanged. We will not pay punitive-level damages for a spill the plaintiff caused herself. See you Monday. We will be moving in limine to exclude the prior complaints as irrelevant 404(b) propensity evidence.

Urgent
CB

Dr. Charles Baxter · Expert Witness, UT Southwestern

Jul 29, 1994

Trial testimony — confirmed availability

I'm confirmed for Wednesday. My demonstratives show full-thickness burns in 2-7 seconds at 190°F vs. 20+ seconds at 160°F. Send me the defense's expert report — I want to be ready for cross on the 'consumer expectation' angle.

FYI
RS

Judge Robert Scott · Chambers, 2nd Judicial District

Jul 27, 1994

Pretrial conference — Friday 9 AM

Counsel: I want both sides prepared to argue the motions in limine Friday. I will not entertain late filings. Jury selection begins promptly at 9 AM Monday. Bring proposed jury instructions in triplicate.

High
KW

Ken Wagner · Co-counsel

Jul 30, 1994

Voir dire strategy

I've drafted the juror questionnaire. Key strikes: anyone who's worked in fast food management, anyone who's said 'frivolous lawsuits' in the past 30 days, and tort-reform sympathizers. Want to review tonight?

FYI
NT

Nancy Liebeck-Tiano · Client's daughter

Jul 31, 1994

Mom is nervous

She didn't sleep last night. She's worried about showing the photos in court. Can we talk through what direct will look like before Monday?

FYI

Success criteria

  • Jury instructions include strict liability, negligence, and punitive damages.
  • Expert testimony admitted on burn thresholds (Dr. Knaff: 180°F coffee causes 3rd-degree burns in 2–7 seconds).
  • Demonstrative evidence (burn photographs, temperature chart) survives Rule 403 objection.
  • Closing argument anchors compensatory at full medicals + pain/suffering and punitives at 1–2 days of coffee revenue (~$1.35M/day).

Stakeholders

  • SL

    Stella Liebeck

    Client / Plaintiff

    neutral
  • NT

    Nancy Tiano

    Client's daughter & caregiver

    supportive
  • KW

    Ken Wagner

    Co-counsel

    supportive
  • CB

    Dr. Charles Baxter

    Burn expert (Plaintiff)

    supportive
  • TM

    Tracy McGee

    Defense Counsel

    tense
  • RS

    Hon. Robert Scott

    Trial Judge

    neutral

Deliverables

  • Motion in Limine — Prior Burn Complaints

    in review

    Brief admitting 700+ prior burn complaints as notice evidence under FRE 404(b) and Rule 407 exception.

  • Opening Statement

    draft

    15-minute narrative: a grandmother, a defective product, a company that knew. No legalese.

  • Direct Examination Outlines

    draft

    Liebeck (sympathy + facts), Dr. Baxter (causation), Appleton-by-deposition (notice & policy).

  • Proposed Jury Instructions

    pending

    Strict liability (§ 402A), negligence, comparative fault, and punitive damages standard.

  • Closing Argument

    pending

    Compensatory anchor ($200K medicals + pain), punitive anchor (1-2 days coffee revenue ≈ $1.35M/day).

  • Trial Notebook

    pending

    Tabbed binder: exhibits, witness outlines, jury instructions, motions, deposition designations.

Competencies assessed

  • Legal Research & Doctrine84 / 100
  • Trial Advocacy70 / 100
  • Witness ExaminationWeight 20%
  • Evidentiary StrategyWeight 15%
  • Client Counseling & EthicsWeight 10%
  • Persuasive WritingWeight 10%

Tools

Case Law SearchEvidence LockerDeposition ViewerBrief EditorJury Instruction Builder