A closer look at the Adelaide McDonalds coffee scalding case

In a parallel to the famous American case, an Adelaide woman is suing a McDonalds franchise after being scaleded by hot coffee purchased at the restaurant. The case has led to an outcry by some, who see the claim as frivolous, and point to it as evidence of Australian society becoming increasingly litigious.

However, as discussed this week in The Conversation, the American "Liebeck decision" is frequently misunderstood, and there is no reason to assume that it will influence an Australian court in the event that it considers the current claim.

Key Differences Between the Australian and American Hot Coffee Cases

1. In the US, negligence claims are often heard by a jury, and it was Ms. Liebeck's peers who decided to award her damages. However, in Australia, negligence claims are decided by a judge. 

2. While the plaintiff in the Liebeck case was originally awarded $2.9 million, a full $2.7 million of this amount was punitive. This was because McDonalds had previously received hundreds of complaints from customers about burns received from coffee, but had failed to take action. They had also rejected Ms. Liebeck's claim to settle early on, when she requested $10,500 for medical expenses. In Australia, punitive damages are not available in negligence claims. 

Similar Cases

Courts in both the US and in other jurisdictions have heard similar cases. In the UK, the High Court considered the case of Bogle and Ors v McDonald’s Restaurants Limited, in which 36 plaintiffs suffered burns from hot drinks. McDonalds was found not liable, with the Court stating that  people "generally expect tea or coffee purchased to be consumed on the premises to be hot… persons generally know that if a hot drink is spilled on someone, a serious scalding injury can result.” 

As such, people following the Australian case should not assume that it will play out in exactly the same way as the American Liebeck case. It is unclear as yet whether the customer has a legitimate claim in australian law against McDonalds.  

TimeBase Case Law includes a comprehensive collection of over 50,000 full text Australian judgments. It is a fast and convenient service giving you access to current and past case law with the ease of powerful, expansive searching. Contact us for a free trial today.