As my friends will tell you, nothing gets my blood pressure rising more than when someone cites "that McDonald's Hot Coffee Case", as a reason for why personal injury lawyers in particular, and the court system in general, are out of control.

The actual case is Liebeck v. McDonalds, Dist. Ct. New Mexico (Aug. 18, 1994). The media characterized it as "Woman gets millions after burning herself with McDonald's hot coffee". The story got international attention. It was even mocked by Sienfeld, which was the most watched TV comedy of the time. Remember the Episode? Kramer tried to sue Starbucks after spilling coffee on himself. He suffered a red mark on his leg. Jackie Chiles took on his case. In the end, Kramer's lawsuit fell apart when his burn fully healed after he put balm on his leg.  Most people think the actual case was similar to this - it was not.

The real case involved a 79 year-old grandmother who bought a coffee at a McDonald's drive thru in Albequreue New Mexico. She was a passenger in a car driven by her grandson. She placed the coffee between her legs while trying to remove the lid. The coffee spilled, causing her to suffer 3rd degree burns to her genitals, groin, inner thighs and legs. Ms. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days and underwent multiple surgeries, including skin grafts, to treat her injuries. It took her 2 years to recover from her injuries.

The jury who heard the case awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, but reduced to $160,000 to account for the fact it found her 20% responsible for her injuries. The jury then awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages to punish McDonald's for its reprehensible behavour.

Punitive damages are awarded to punish a company for bad behaviour. The purpose is to denounce the bad behavour and to discourage the company, or others, form engaging in similar conduct in the future. To be effective, punitive damages must be proportional to the wealth of the wrongdoer - otherwise, punitive damages will not serve as a deterrent. They will simply become a cost of doing business. McDonald's was a multi-billion dollar organization, therefore, the jury decided that punitive damages of $2.7 million were necessary to make McDonald's change its behaviour.

Several days later the judge lowered the punitive damages from $2.7 million to $480,000. Both sides appealed. However, they reached a confidential settlement before the appeal could be heard.

Why was the jury so angry at McDonalds? Following are some of testimony that came out during the trial:

• Ms. Liebeck initially offered to settle her case for $20,000 (cost of her medical bills) but McDonalds offered her only $800;

• McDonald's admitted to knowing about the risk of serious burns for about 10 years. From 1982-92 McDonalds had received more than 700 complaints of people, including children and infants, suffering serious burns from its coffee;

• McDonald required its francises to serve coffee at 80-88 degrees celcius, which its own expert said was a burn hazzard;

• McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat;

• The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee;

• Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds;

• Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn;

• McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

It is difficult to get reliable information about the Liebeck Case. The above facts are cut and pasted from a fact sheet provided by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (of which I am a member) - you can access ATLA's fact sheet by clicking here.

There is also a good summary of the case on the Online Encycolpedia Wikipedia, which you can access by clicking here.

I tried, without success, to speak with the actual lawyer who represented Ms. Liebeck. I believe that he signed a confidentiality agreement that prevents him from speaking about the case.

Well its about time. Car accidents are the #1 cause of injuries to children. Seatbelts are designed for people 4'9" and taller. Children using seatbelts are often needlessly injured by using seatbelts that don't fit them.

As of January 1, 2007, children riding in automobiles must be provided with either a car seat or a booster seat up until the age of nine, or until the child reaches 4'9" in height. These changes were brought about by the new Seat Belt Regulations, which adopt s. 213 of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Standards).

It is the driver's responsibility, whether they are the parent or not, to make sure all child passengers have and use a car seat or booster seat. The fine for failure to use a car seat or booster seat is $157.50 and 2 demerit points for a first offence.

However, beyond getting a fine, it is now clear a driver would be liable in negligence if a child passenger was injured because of a failure to have a car seat or booster seat, or if the child was injured because the car seat or booster seat was improperly installed.

For more information on the new seatbelt laws and how to choose/install a car seat or booster seat go to momsanddads.com

Pregnant mothers beware!  Your unborn child can later sue you, if you injure them in a car accident caused by your recklessness or carelessness (at least in Alberta).

Over the Christmas holidays a 5 year-old child was successful in settling a lawsuit against her mother for injuries the mother caused the the child while the child was in the mother's womb. The child reached a settlement with the mother's automobile insurance company.

The facts of the case are set out at the CBC website which you can access by clicking here. In a nutshell, Lisa Rewega (the mother) was reckless in driving her car and caused an accident. She was pregnant at the time and the accident caused severe injuries to her unborn child. Her child, now five years old, made a personal injury claim against her mother for these injuries.

A few years ago, a similar case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. There was disagreement among the Judges, but the majority ruled that a mother cannot be held liable for negligently injuring her child while it is a feotus. The majority decision, however, did leave a loophole - Provinces could pass laws allowing mothers to be held liable in cases involving automobile accidents.

In 2005 the Government of Alberta passed the Maternal Tort Liability Act and became the first province to take advantage of the loophole.Section 4 of that Act states:

4 A mother may be liable to her child for injuries suffered by her child on or after the birth that were caused by the mother's use or operation of an automobile during her pregnancy if, at the time of that use or operation, the mother was insured under a contract of automobile insurance evidence by a motor vehicle liability policy.

So far Alberta is the only province to have this law. This case raises the question how far society should go in regulating the actions of pregnant mothers. Should a mother be held legally liable if she knowing chooses to do things that put her foetus at risk of injury? Such as driving a car too fast? Taking illegal drugs or excessive alcohol? Sky diving? the list goes on.