Everything You Know About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit is WRONG | Dr. Lawyer Breakdown Ep. 8

Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note.For decades, the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit has been treated as proof that people can sue over anything. But the actual facts of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants tell a very different story.Bradford Keaty and Dr. Joseph Ramos revisit the case that changed how Dr. Ramos viewed attorneys. They discuss Stella Liebeck’s third-degree burns, the hundreds of prior burn complaints, why McDonald’s served its coffee at approximately 180 to 190 degrees, how comparative fault affected the verdict, and why the widely repeated $2.7 million figure does not reflect what she ultimately received.The episode also opens with a listener question about how to find a trustworthy hormone replacement therapy provider and closes with the story of how Dr. Ramos’s first instructional flight ended in a plane crash.In this episode:What the public gets wrong about the McDonald’s hot coffee caseHow becoming an attorney changed Dr. Ramos’s perspectiveWhat punitive damages and comparative fault meanWhy a judge can reduce a jury’s verdictQuestions to ask when choosing an HRT providerThe story of Dr. Ramos’s first plane crashWhat famous lawsuit, medical question, or story from the intersection of law and medicine should we break down next? Leave your question in the comments.Subscribe for more episodes of Dr. Lawyer Breakdown, where Bradford Keaty and Dr. Joseph Ramos explore everything from the mundane to the arcane through the worlds of law and medicine.