Case No. 001 · Decided
Liebeck v. McDonald's, Retried
The hot coffee case. You know the story. Now read the file and render your own verdict.
The Deliberation Room · 0 arguments ↓ Share this case
The Case Fileread the record, then vote
You have been assigned the case file as the public knows it.
In February 1992, a woman bought a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-through in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Riding in the car with her drink, she took the lid off the cup and spilled the coffee into her lap.
She was burned, and she sued McDonald's. Her claim: the coffee was too hot.
A New Mexico jury heard the case in 1994 and awarded her nearly $2.9 million. The verdict made headlines around the world and became the most famous example in the American argument over lawsuits: to some, proof that anyone can sue over anything; to others, a case everyone talks about and no one has actually read.
The question before you is the question that was before that jury: was McDonald's liable for her injuries?
For the Plaintiff
The plaintiff's case is simple: a product served to a customer caused her serious injury, and the seller answers for the products it serves. Coffee is meant to be consumed, not to inflict burns requiring medical care. When a routine spill of a routine breakfast drink puts a customer in the hospital, something about that drink was not routine. A business that hands a customer a product that dangerous, in a moving car, through a window, has a duty to make it safe or to say plainly that it is not. The jury that heard the full evidence found the company responsible. Before you dismiss their verdict from the headline alone, ask what they knew that the headline never told you.
For the Defense
Coffee is hot. Every adult knows it, every adult accepts it, and every adult who has ever carried a cup in a car has managed that obvious risk. The plaintiff bought a hot drink, chose to open it in her lap, and spilled it on herself. No one at McDonald's touched the cup after it left the window. If a customer's own slip converts a cup of coffee into millions of dollars, then no business that serves anything warm is safe from its own menu. Personal responsibility has to mean something, and it means the most in exactly the case where sympathy pulls hardest. An accident, even a painful one, is not automatically someone else's fault.
The AI Jury Forecastsimulation, never counted
Simulated Panel · Clearly Labeled · Never Counted in the Human Tally
Before human voting opened, twelve simulated jurors deliberated this file. The panel models a range of American demographic profiles and heard only the file above.
The AI jury's verdict: NOT LIABLE, 8 to 4.
The simulated majority reasoned that on these facts a spill in the buyer's own hands is the buyer's own accident, and that "coffee is hot" is knowledge the law can expect of everyone. The simulated minority argued the size of the real award suggested facts the summary leaves out, and declined to rule against a burned customer on a headline. Beat the panel or prove it right: your verdict below is the one that counts.
Your Verdict
Voting has closed. Read the court's opinion.
24% of the jury finds liable.
This case was a blind split. Jurors were randomly assigned one of two files and never saw the other. The combined figure above averages two groups who read different evidence, so the arms are reported separately here.
- The folklore file: 0 of 9 found liable.
- The trial record: 4 of 8 found liable.
Counts, not percentages: at this sample size a percentage would imply a precision we do not have. See the experiment record for the full comparison and its limits.
The Deliberation Room · 0 arguments ↓ Share this case
The Deliberation Room
Seated jurors argue the case here, on the record. House rule: argue the evidence, not the person. Every argument is checked against the house rules the moment it is filed and publishes at once; the Clerk audits the record afterward.
This case is decided. The arguments below are the jurors' record; those who served may still argue the verdict.
The room is quiet. Yours could be the opening argument.
Sources and Coverage
Every TrueJury case file is drawn from the public record. Check our work:
Liebeck v. McDonald's at the American Museum of Tort Law: the trial record, evidence, and outcome.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, No. CV-93-02419 (1994).