Legal News

A New Tort-Reform Talking Point: The Chicken Sandwich Case

By Ashby Jones

The NYT’s editorial page joins the tort-reform debate on Tuesday, teeing up a case that it views as a companion of sorts to the famous “too-hot coffee” case, in which a woman was badly burned by McDonald’s coffee.

Writes the NYT:

When Frank Sutton bit into his [McDonald's chicken] sandwich, scalding grease "flew all over his mouth," a fellow diner recalled. Mr. Sutton's wife took ice from her drink and applied it to his face, but his lips blistered. When he told one of the employees, he testified that she said "this is what happens" to the sandwiches "when they aren't drained completely." The next morning, he found that his lips had bled on the pillow.

Seven months later, his injuries still had not completely healed. He says he avoided certain work assignments at his job of refurbishing and assembling outdoor amusement rides if he thought they would make his lip condition worse. Mr. Sutton sued McDonald's and the local franchisee, alleging that he had suffered $2 million in medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Sutton lost at the lower-court level; the federal judge on the case ruled that Sutton hadn’t proven that McDonald’s was negligent and that Sutton was contributorily negligent, that he “failed to exercise reasonable care.”

Last month, the Fourth Circuit reinstated the suit — a fact the Times celebrates:

If Mr. Sutton prevails, expect his case to become a talking point for critics of civil lawsuits and a late-night punch line. What they should be saying is that companies that sell food to the public have an undeniable responsibility to ensure their products are safe. That's no joke.

LBers, any thoughts? It seems to us that a distinction can be made between this case and the coffee case, one which has to do with the way the plaintiff handled his or her purchase. In the McDonalds case, the woman, 79-year old Stella Liebeck, was holding a cup of hot coffee between her knees in her car while attempting to add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled when she tried to pull off the lid.

In the chicken case, judging from the facts the NYT provides, the plaintiff simply bit into a sandwich. We’re no tort professor here, but it seems more foreseeable that Liebeck’s action might lead to injury than it does that Sutton’s would.

Or do we have it all wrong?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on March 09, 2010 (boomark / email).