Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the least discussed but most consequential provisions in the Bill of Rights. It rarely makes headlines, yet it gives ordinary citizens the power to seek justice against powerful entities in civil disputes.
There’s perhaps no more famous—and more profoundly misunderstood—example of this right in action than the 1994 lawsuit Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. The case, popularly known as the “spilled coffee lawsuit,” entered public consciousness as a caricature of legal excess—a supposed “frivolous lawsuit” that epitomized a justice system run amok.
It became the poster child for a decades-long political movement aimed at reforming tort law and, in the process, limiting the power of the very juries the Seventh Amendment was designed to protect.
The real story behind the headlines isn’t one of greed or legal absurdity. It’s a story of a catastrophic injury, a corporation’s documented history of disregard for customer safety, and a jury’s methodical exercise of its constitutional duty.
Understanding how a 79-year-old woman’s burns were transformed into a national punchline is to understand the stakes of the Seventh Amendment itself and the ongoing battle over the role of the citizen jury in American democracy.
The Seventh Amendment Foundation
To grasp the significance of the “spilled coffee” case and the debate it ignited, you must first understand the constitutional right at its core. The Seventh Amendment wasn’t a novel idea conceived by the Founders but the culmination of centuries of legal tradition and a direct response to colonial grievances.
Its placement in the Bill of Rights reflects a deep-seated belief that a jury of one’s peers is a fundamental bulwark against arbitrary power, not just in criminal cases, but in civil disputes between individuals, or between an individual and a powerful entity.
From English Common Law to Revolution
The right to a jury trial in civil cases traces its lineage directly to English common law. The institution of the jury, originally an inquisitorial body from the Norman Conquest era, evolved into a cornerstone of English justice.
The esteemed 18th-century jurist Sir William Blackstone, whose writings heavily influenced the American Founders, lauded the civil jury as “the glory of the English law” and a necessity for the “impartial administration of justice.” Blackstone and others feared that if justice were “entirely entrusted to the magistracy, a select body of men,” it would be subject to an “involuntary bias.” A jury of ordinary citizens was the remedy.
This reverence for the jury was carried across the Atlantic by the American colonists, who saw it as an essential right of free people. During the colonial period, the civil jury became a powerful tool of political resistance.
As tensions with Great Britain escalated, colonial juries frequently refused to enforce unpopular British laws, such as those concerning trade and seditious libel, in a practice known as jury nullification. In response, the British Crown sought to curtail this power by expanding the jurisdiction of admiralty courts, which operated without juries.
This effort to diminish the right to a jury trial was seen as a direct assault on colonial liberties. Consequently, the Declaration of Independence listed the King’s actions “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” as one of the central grievances justifying the American Revolution.
After the Revolution, the right was enshrined in most state constitutions. However, when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, it initially omitted a provision for juries in civil cases, an omission that became a major point of contention during the ratification debates.
Anti-Federalists, who feared the power of the new federal government, argued forcefully that a civil jury was a necessary defense against potential corruption and overreach from the federal judiciary and other branches. The demand was so strong that it “was pressed with an urgency and zeal… well-nigh preventing its ratification.”
As a result, James Madison included the guarantee in his proposed amendments, leading to its adoption as the Seventh Amendment in 1791. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story would later describe it as a “most important and valuable amendment” that secured the “inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases.”
The Amendment’s Text and Meaning
The final text of the Seventh Amendment is divided into two critical parts, each with a distinct function:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
The interpretation of this text hinges on several key phrases:
“Suits at common law”: This phrase establishes the scope of the right. Historically, English courts were divided into two systems: courts of law and courts of equity. Courts of law handled cases where the plaintiff sought monetary damages as a remedy for an injury. Courts of equity handled cases where monetary damages were inadequate and the plaintiff sought a non-monetary order, such as an injunction or specific performance.
The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial attaches to “suits at common law”—that is, cases primarily seeking monetary damages.
“the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”: The word “preserved” is crucial. The amendment doesn’t create a new right, but rather preserves the right as it existed in 1791. This has led the Supreme Court to adopt a “historical test”: the right to a jury is guaranteed in federal court for causes of action that were, or are analogous to, cases that were tried by a jury in English common law at the time the amendment was ratified.
This creates a significant interpretive challenge, as courts must determine how to apply an 18th-century standard to modern legal claims, like product liability, that didn’t exist in their current form in 1791.
“exceed twenty dollars”: This clause, which has never been adjusted for inflation, seems archaic today. Its inclusion simply sets a very low threshold for the right to attach, but its static nature underscores the “frozen in time” quality of the amendment’s text.
The Re-examination Clause: The amendment’s second half—”no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”—is a powerful reinforcement of the jury’s authority.
It establishes the jury as the ultimate finder of fact. While a judge determines the law, the jury determines what happened. This clause severely limits a judge’s ability to substitute their own judgment for the jury’s on factual questions, preventing them from simply overturning a verdict they disagree with.
Federal vs. State Courts
A critical and often misunderstood aspect of the Seventh Amendment is that it applies only to the federal court system. Unlike most provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech or protection against unreasonable searches, the Supreme Court has never “incorporated” the right to a civil jury trial through the Fourteenth Amendment to make it binding on state courts.
This means states aren’t constitutionally required by federal law to provide jury trials in civil cases.
However, in practice, this limitation has little effect because almost every state has voluntarily included a parallel right to a civil jury trial in its own state constitution. This is why a case like Liebeck v. McDonald’s, which was tried in a New Mexico state court, was heard by a jury. The right was guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
This distinction is vital for understanding the modern political landscape. The “tort reform” debate isn’t about changing the Seventh Amendment; it’s primarily a series of state-level legislative battles to amend state laws and constitutions to place limits on the power and scope of state court juries.
This has created a patchwork of civil justice across the country, where the specific rules governing jury size, whether a verdict must be unanimous, and the types of cases eligible for a jury trial can vary significantly between the federal system and the 50 different state systems.
The Real Story of Liebeck v. McDonald’s
The public narrative of the Liebeck case is a powerful example of how a complex reality can be distorted into a simplistic myth. To understand the jury’s decision and the subsequent debate, it’s essential to set aside the caricature and examine the facts as they were presented in court.
Myth vs. Reality
| The Myth | The Reality |
|---|---|
| She was driving the car while trying to handle the coffee | She was a passenger in a parked car. Her grandson, the driver, had pulled over so she could safely add cream and sugar |
| It was a minor burn, the kind anyone gets from spilling coffee | She suffered third-degree, full-thickness burns over 6% of her body, including her groin, thighs, and buttocks, requiring an 8-day hospital stay and painful skin grafts |
| She was a greedy plaintiff looking for a lottery win | She initially asked McDonald’s only to cover her medical expenses and lost income, which totaled about $20,000. McDonald’s offered $800 |
| The coffee was just normal “hot coffee” | McDonald’s corporate policy required coffee to be served at 180-190°F, a temperature that can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. This was 30-50 degrees hotter than coffee from competitors or home brewers |
| This was an isolated, freak accident | The jury heard evidence that McDonald’s had received over 700 prior reports of severe burns from its coffee in the decade before Liebeck’s injury and had paid over $500,000 in settlements |
| A “runaway jury” irrationally awarded her nearly $3 million | The jury awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, which they calculated as two days of the company’s coffee revenue. The trial judge later reduced the total punitive award to $480,000. The final settlement was for less than $500,000 |
What Actually Happened
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. They had just purchased a 49-cent cup of coffee from a McDonald’s drive-thru.
Her grandson pulled into a parking spot so that Ms. Liebeck could safely add cream and sugar to her coffee. As the car had no cup holders, she placed the styrofoam cup between her knees to steady it while she removed the lid. In the process, the cup tipped over, spilling the entire contents onto her lap.
What happened next wasn’t a minor inconvenience. Ms. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which immediately absorbed the scalding liquid and held it tightly against her skin, prolonging and intensifying the burn. She went into shock and was rushed to the emergency room.
The diagnosis was devastating: she had suffered third-degree, full-thickness burns across six percent of her body, with lesser burns covering sixteen percent. The burns, some of which went down to the muscle and fatty tissue, covered her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital area.
Her ordeal was just beginning. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which she underwent excruciating debridement treatments—the surgical removal of dead skin and tissue—to prevent infection. She required multiple skin grafting operations to repair the damage.
The trauma was so severe that during her hospital stay, she lost 20 pounds, nearly 20 percent of her body weight. Her recovery would take over two years and left her with permanent scarring and partial disability.
The Evidence Against McDonald’s
When the case eventually went to trial, Ms. Liebeck’s attorneys presented the jury with evidence arguing that this wasn’t a simple accident, but the predictable result of a dangerously defective product and corporate negligence. The core of their case rested on two pillars: the extreme temperature of the coffee and McDonald’s prior knowledge of the hazard it posed.
The Temperature Issue
Through discovery, her lawyers obtained McDonald’s own operations manual, which contained a corporate policy requiring franchisees to hold and serve coffee at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Expert testimony from a thermodynamics scholar and a burn specialist established the critical danger of this policy. Liquid at 190°F can cause a full-thickness third-degree burn in under three seconds; at 180°F, it takes about 12 to 15 seconds.
By contrast, coffee served at 160°F—a common temperature for other restaurants—would take a full 20 seconds to inflict a similar burn, providing a crucial window of time for a person to wipe the liquid away and prevent catastrophic injury. Coffee brewed at home is typically even cooler, around 135-140°F.
The Shriner’s Burn Institute had even published warnings to the franchise food industry that serving beverages above 130°F was unnecessarily causing serious scald burns.
Prior Knowledge of Danger
Perhaps most damning was the evidence of McDonald’s prior knowledge. The company’s own records, produced during discovery, revealed that in the ten years from 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s had received more than 700 reports from customers who had been burned by its coffee.
These weren’t all minor complaints; they included numerous cases of severe burns to adults, children, and infants. The company had paid out over $500,000 in settlements related to these prior burn claims. This evidence flatly contradicted any claim that McDonald’s was unaware of the danger.
The jury also heard testimony that demonstrated a corporate culture of indifference. A McDonald’s quality assurance manager admitted under oath that coffee served at 180-190°F was not “fit for consumption” because it would burn the mouth and throat. He acknowledged the burn hazard but testified that the company had no intention of changing its policy.
Another company witness argued that 700 burn claims were “statistically trivial” when compared to the billions of cups of coffee McDonald’s served annually. Jurors later stated that this apparent “callous disregard for the safety of the people” was a key factor in their decision.
The Path to Court
The narrative of a “greedy” plaintiff is decisively undermined by the events that preceded the lawsuit. Stella Liebeck’s initial goal wasn’t to get rich; it was to be made whole and to prevent others from suffering the same fate.
She and her family sent letters to McDonald’s asking for two things: reimbursement for her medical expenses (which were about $10,500) and lost income for her daughter who cared for her, for a total of approximately $18,000 to $20,000; and a request that the company re-evaluate its coffee temperature policy.
In response to this request to cover actual, documented costs for a catastrophic injury, McDonald’s Corporation offered Stella Liebeck $800. It was only after this refusal to negotiate a reasonable settlement that Ms. Liebeck retained an attorney and the lawsuit was filed.
How the Jury Decided
The jury that heard Liebeck v. McDonald’s was tasked with applying established legal principles to the evidence presented. Their verdict wasn’t an emotional outburst but a methodical application of the law, demonstrating the civil jury system functioning exactly as intended.
Weighing the Facts
The case was tried under the legal theories of product liability and negligence. In simple terms, product liability law holds a manufacturer responsible for injuries caused by a product that is “unreasonably dangerous” for its intended or foreseeable uses. Negligence involves proving that the company failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care in its actions, and that this failure caused the injury.
The jury also had to apply the doctrine of comparative negligence. This legal rule allows a jury to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in an incident.
The jury concluded that while Ms. Liebeck bore some responsibility for spilling the coffee, McDonald’s was overwhelmingly responsible for the severity of her injuries due to its decision to serve coffee at a dangerously high temperature despite knowing the risks.
After deliberating, the jury assigned 20 percent of the fault to Ms. Liebeck and 80 percent of the fault to McDonald’s. This finding reflects a nuanced understanding of causation: her action caused the spill, but the company’s policy caused the catastrophic burns.
Two Types of Damages
The jury’s monetary award is the most misunderstood part of the case, largely because of a failure to distinguish between its two components: compensatory and punitive damages.
Compensatory Damages: This portion of an award is intended to compensate the plaintiff for their actual losses. This includes quantifiable costs like medical bills and lost wages (economic damages), as well as compensation for non-quantifiable harm like pain, suffering, and permanent disfigurement (non-economic damages).
The jury determined that Ms. Liebeck’s total compensatory damages were $200,000. Applying the comparative negligence finding, they then reduced this amount by her 20 percent share of the fault, resulting in a final compensatory award of $160,000. This part of the verdict was directly tied to the harm she suffered.
Punitive Damages: This second type of award isn’t meant to compensate the victim, but to punish the defendant for conduct that is found to be particularly malicious, reckless, or willful, and to deter that defendant and others from engaging in similar behavior in the future.
The jury, after hearing about the 700 prior burn claims and McDonald’s refusal to change its policy, decided that punitive damages were warranted. They awarded $2.7 million.
This figure wasn’t arbitrary. Jurors later confirmed that they arrived at this amount by calculating McDonald’s worldwide revenue from coffee sales for two days. It was a calculated message, scaled to the size of the corporation, designed to be significant enough to get the company’s attention and force a change in its dangerous policy.
The jury’s verdict was a rational and structured act of civic governance. They followed the judge’s instructions, applied the law of comparative negligence with mathematical precision, and based their punitive award on a specific corporate metric to achieve the legal goal of deterrence.
The Judge’s Final Check
The jury’s verdict wasn’t the final word. The American legal system contains checks and balances, and one of these is the judge’s power of remittitur, which allows a judge to reduce a jury’s award if they believe it’s excessive.
The trial judge in the Liebeck case, while stating that McDonald’s conduct had been “willful, wanton, and reckless,” exercised this power. He reduced the jury’s $2.7 million punitive damage award to $480,000, which was three times the final compensatory award.
The final amount Ms. Liebeck received was even less. Facing a lengthy appeals process, the parties reached a confidential post-verdict settlement for an amount reported to be less than $500,000.
The headline-grabbing “$2.9 million” figure was never paid. This fact, often omitted from public accounts, demonstrates that the system has internal mechanisms to moderate jury awards and prevent true “runaway” verdicts.
How a Lawsuit Became a Legend
The gap between the factual reality of the Liebeck case and its public perception is vast. The transformation of this tragic story into a symbol of a broken legal system wasn’t accidental; it was the result of a concerted effort by media and political actors who found it to be a powerful tool in a much larger debate.
Media and Political Distortion
Immediately following the verdict, media coverage often stripped the story of its essential context. Headlines focused on the initial “$2.9 million” award while omitting the severe nature of the burns, McDonald’s 700 prior victims, the company’s initial $800 offer, and the judge’s subsequent reduction of the award.
This simplified, sensationalized narrative was perfectly suited for a public already primed by an ongoing campaign to believe in a “litigation explosion.”
The distorted story was quickly seized upon by corporate and insurance industry lobbyists, and political advocates for “tort reform”—a movement aimed at limiting the ability of individuals to sue and capping the damages juries can award.
The Liebeck case became their “poster child,” a go-to example of “frivolous lawsuits” and “runaway juries” used to argue that the civil justice system was out of control and harming the economy.
The narrative was reinforced in popular culture, most famously in a parody on the sitcom Seinfeld, which cemented the case in the public imagination as a laughable money grab. This myth-making was so effective that the case is still widely cited as proof of a dysfunctional system, despite being a powerful demonstration of that system working to hold a corporation accountable for its reckless behavior.
The Tort Reform Debate
The Liebeck case sits at the epicenter of the contentious, multi-decade debate over tort reform. The debate pits two fundamentally different views of the purpose and function of the civil justice system against each other.
| Arguments FOR Tort Reform | Arguments AGAINST Tort Reform |
|---|---|
| Primary Goal: To curb “frivolous lawsuits” and limit what are seen as excessive, unpredictable jury awards | Primary Goal: To preserve individual access to justice and hold wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause |
| Economic Argument: Large, unpredictable verdicts drive up the costs of liability insurance and doing business. These costs are ultimately passed on to consumers, stifle economic growth, and discourage innovation | Accountability Argument: The threat of a large jury verdict is one of the most powerful incentives for corporations to prioritize the safety of their products and services over profits. Limiting this threat reduces corporate accountability |
| Proposed Solution: Legislative “caps” on damages, particularly non-economic damages (for pain and suffering) and punitive damages. This creates economic predictability and limits the power of juries | Critique of Caps: Caps are arbitrary, “one-size-fits-all” legislative judgments that usurp the jury’s constitutional role to assess damages based on the specific facts of a case. They disproportionately harm the most catastrophically injured victims |
| Medical Context: Fear of large malpractice lawsuits leads doctors to practice “defensive medicine” (ordering unnecessary tests and procedures), which drives up national healthcare costs | Access to Justice Argument: Caps on damages make it economically impossible for attorneys working on a contingency fee basis to take on expensive and complex cases for severely injured but low-income plaintiffs, effectively “blocking the courthouse door” |
Proponents of tort reform argue that an unchecked civil justice system imposes a “tort tax” on the economy. They contend that the fear of massive, arbitrary jury awards forces businesses and professionals to operate in a climate of uncertainty, leading to higher insurance premiums, increased consumer prices, and a reluctance to innovate.
In their view, legislative caps on damages are a common-sense solution that brings stability and predictability to the system, discouraging lawsuits of questionable merit and reining in what they see as the emotional and irrational decisions of lay juries.
Opponents of tort reform, often calling the movement “tort deform,” argue that these measures prioritize corporate profits over public safety. They see the civil jury not as a source of economic instability, but as a vital democratic check on corporate power.
The Liebeck case is their prime example: it was the jury’s verdict, and specifically the threat of punitive damages, that forced a multi-billion dollar corporation to change a policy that had been injuring people for a decade.
They argue that damage caps are a blunt instrument that pre-judges the value of a person’s suffering without hearing any evidence and that they fall hardest on those with the most severe injuries, such as a child left permanently disabled or a low-wage worker who cannot claim large economic losses.
Furthermore, they argue that by limiting potential recovery, caps make it financially unviable for attorneys to take on meritorious but expensive cases for poor or middle-class clients, thereby denying them meaningful access to the courts.
Modern Challenges to Jury Rights
The battle over the civil jury trial continues today, extending beyond the high-profile debate on tort reform. Several other, more subtle legal trends are contributing to what some scholars call a “silent erosion” of the Seventh Amendment right.
The Silent Erosion
While legislative tort reform is a direct assault on the jury’s power, other mechanisms work more quietly to steer disputes away from the jury box.
Mandatory Arbitration: Increasingly, corporations include forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of consumer and employment contracts. These clauses strip individuals of their constitutional right to a day in court, forcing any dispute into a private, binding arbitration system.
This system lacks many of the procedural protections of a courtroom, such as the rules of evidence, and there’s no jury of one’s peers. Critics argue these forums are inherently biased, as arbitrators may be dependent on repeat business from the corporations involved, and the proceedings are often secret, preventing public scrutiny of corporate wrongdoing.
Judicial Gatekeeping: Over the past few decades, judges have been given more power to act as “gatekeepers,” deciding cases before they can ever reach a jury. Through procedures like summary judgment, a judge can rule that one side’s case is so weak that no reasonable jury could find in their favor, ending the lawsuit.
Additionally, stricter standards for the admission of expert testimony, such as the Daubert standard, allow judges to exclude critical evidence, effectively preventing a plaintiff from being able to prove their case to a jury.
The Public Rights Doctrine: This complex legal doctrine allows Congress, when creating new statutory rights (such as those related to workplace safety or environmental regulation), to assign the adjudication of those rights to administrative agencies within the executive branch.
These administrative proceedings are typically heard by an administrative law judge, not a jury, bypassing the Article III court system and the Seventh Amendment entirely.
Why Juries Still Matter
Whether the challenge comes from legislative caps, fine-print arbitration clauses, or complex procedural rules, the underlying issue remains the same: a steady transfer of power away from the citizen jury and toward legislatures, judges, and private entities.
The Founders cherished the civil jury because they saw it as a fundamental democratic institution—a way for ordinary citizens to participate directly in the administration of government and to ensure that the law remained grounded in community values.
The civil jury empowers a group of citizens to hear evidence and hold the most powerful actors in society—be it a government agency or a multinational corporation—accountable for their actions.
The true story of the “spilled coffee” case isn’t an indictment of a flawed system. It’s a powerful affirmation of that system’s purpose. It’s the story of twelve citizens who carefully weighed complex evidence, followed the law, and rendered a verdict that was both a just compensation for a grievous injury and a powerful deterrent against corporate indifference.
Their decision ultimately made a consumer product safer for millions. In this light, the Seventh Amendment isn’t a historical relic. It’s a living, breathing right that protects what Justice Story called an “inestimable privilege” and what the Founders believed was one of the “best securities to the rights of the people.”
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.