Politics - Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Reclaiming the Truth About the McDonald’s Coffee Case – And Why It Matters

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 19:20:16 GMT

For decades, Corporate America has waged a calculated campaign to vilify trial lawyers and delegitimize civil lawsuits. The now-infamous McDonald’s coffee spill case has been cynically exploited as the poster child for “frivolous lawsuits.” The case is cited endlessly in media soundbites, political speeches, and boardroom talking points to convince the public that the justice system is out of control.

And sadly, the public has swallowed this propaganda—hook, line, and sinker.

Why would Corporate America want to discredit civil lawsuits?
The answer is simple: profits over people. By undermining the right of individuals to seek justice through the courts, corporations reduce their accountability for negligent and harmful conduct. Civil lawsuits are one of the few tools that force powerful interests to take responsibility. Limit those lawsuits, and you limit consequences. It’s that straightforward.

How does the propaganda work?
By fueling a false narrative of a “lawsuit crisis,” the public is stirred into demanding reform. Politicians—particularly those who proudly wear the “conservative” label—are more than happy to oblige. But not without a price. The loudest voices for lawsuit restrictions also tend to receive the most generous campaign contributions from corporate donors.

In response, these lawmakers push so-called “tort reform” laws that make it increasingly difficult for everyday Americans to take on big business in court. These laws don’t just stack the deck—they lock the courtroom doors.

It’s been happening for years, and it’s not just concerning—it’s dangerous. This is big business run amok.

Let’s go back to the McDonald’s coffee case.

Here are the facts:

In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns after spilling McDonald’s coffee on her lap. She was seated in a parked car, attempting to add cream and sugar when the coffee spilled. She sustained burns so severe that she was hospitalized for eight days, required skin grafts, and was left with permanent scarring and pain. Her medical bills exceeded $11,000.

Before filing suit, Ms. Liebeck simply asked McDonald’s to cover her medical expenses. The company offered $800.

Here’s what the public rarely hears:

McDonald’s served its coffee at 195–205°F. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 3 seconds or less.
Experts testified that coffee at 160°F (a much safer temperature) would take 20 seconds to cause the same damage—time enough to react and avoid serious injury.
McDonald’s internal documents showed it had received over 700 burn complaints from hot coffee in the previous 10 years. The company had already paid out over $500,000 to settle similar claims.
The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because Ms. Liebeck was found 20% at fault. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages—roughly two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee revenue—based on findings that McDonald’s acted with willful disregard for consumer safety.
The judge later reduced the punitive award to $480,000. Both sides appealed and the case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount.
The day after the verdict, the temperature of the coffee at that McDonald’s location was tested—reduced to 158°F.

Ms. Liebeck was not a serial litigant. She was a retired clerk, injured by a dangerously hot product. Her case was tried before a fair and impartial judge, with competent counsel on both sides, and a jury of everyday Americans. This wasn’t a rogue decision—it was the justice system working as designed.

The Bigger Picture

The Founding Fathers enshrined the civil jury system in the Constitution for a reason: it is the best safeguard a free society has against unchecked power. It’s not perfect, but it works remarkably well—if we let it. When mistakes occur, the system has mechanisms to correct them through judicial oversight and appellate review.

The smear campaign against the civil justice system isn’t about protecting the public from “greedy lawyers” or “runaway juries.” It’s about protecting corporate profits by weakening your right to hold wrongdoers accountable.

Believe in the civil jury system. It’s one of the last remaining ways for everyday people to stand on equal footing with the most powerful interests in our society.

*********************************************************

Contact us toll free at 866-785-GALE or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) for a free, confidential consultation to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Abuse of Power

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:39:30 GMT

Republicans control all phases of lawmaking at the state level in Florida. This has been the case since the election of Jeb Bush as governor in 1998, complementing their majorities in the Florida House and Senate.

Presently, they rule by supermajority in the Legislature, meaning they don’t have to negotiate with members of other parties to pass legislation. With the encouragement of current governor Ron DeSantis, they have been wont to stoke the flames of culture wars by enacting draconian laws such as those banning books and hurting the LGBTQ community.

While their culture war laws get the headlines, Republicans also work in quieter ways to undermine the fabric of American society. One of their favorite tricks is to weaken the rights of individuals to seek redress within the legal system.

Last legislative session they passed bills reducing the statute of limitations in personal injury cases from four years to two years and barring all personal injury claims where the injured party is more than 50% at fault, even just 51% (768.81(6)).

This latter measure may appear reasonable on its face to the uninitiated, but it is not. In years past damage awards were apportioned by percentage of fault through a legal principle known as comparative fault. For example, if a person who was 51% at fault was awarded $1,000,000 in damages by a jury, the court would reduce that person’s share of the award to $490,000. Under the legislation passed in 2023, that same person would walk away with nothing even if another party was 49% at fault.

During this year’s legislative session, which is currently underway, Republicans are seeking to establish arbitrary damage caps in medical malpractice cases. Regardless of what a jury may decide a case is worth after receiving and deliberating the evidence, judges will be forced to reduce verdicts exceeding the cap. The proposed legislation is CS/SB 248: Medical Negligence.

It matters not to this crop of Republican legislators that a similar damage cap statute was ruled unconstitutional in the past by the Florida Supreme Court. Cynically, they are expecting the current Florida Supreme Court, made up mostly of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis nominees, to ignore precedent and uphold the new legislation. Sadly, they have a recent example to go by to believe that a Republican majority court will reverse the decision of its predecessor members. The example is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 United States Supreme Court abortion decision which overruled 50 years of precedent.

McCall v. United States of America, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014), was a case involving a military veteran whose death was caused by medical negligence. The jury’s award was reduced to comply with the damage caps. The Florida Supreme Court decided that the damage caps were unconstitutional.

Then, as now, the Florida Legislature attempted to justify the cap on noneconomic damages by claiming that “Florida is in the midst of a medical malpractice insurance crisis of unprecedented magnitude.” Ch.2003-416, § 1, Laws of Fla., at 4035.

As explained by the court majority, “the Legislature relied heavily on a report prepared by the Governor’s Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance (Task Force), which concluded that ‘actual and potential jury awards of noneconomic damages (such as pain and suffering) are a key factor (perhaps the most important factor) behind the unavailability and un-affordability of medical malpractice insurance in Florida.’ Report of Governor’s Select Task Force on Healthcare Professional Liability Insurance (Task Force Report) (Jan. 29, 2003), at xvii.” McCall at 906.

Problem is, the Task Force Report did not hold water. As Justice Lewis explains:

Our consideration of the factors and circumstances involved demonstrates that the conclusions reached by the Florida Legislature as to the existence of a medical malpractice crisis are not fully supported by available data. Instead, the alleged interest of health care being unavailable is completely undermined by authoritative government reports. Those government reports have indicated that the numbers of physicians in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas have increased. For example, in a 2003 report, the United States General Accounting Office found that from 1991 to 2001, Florida’s physician supply per 100,000 people grew from 214 to 237 in metropolitan areas and from 98 to 117 in nonmetropolitan areas, or percentage increases of 10.7 and 19, respectively. Physician Workforce: Physician Supply Increased in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas but Geographic Disparities Persisted, No. GAO-04-124, (Oct. 31, 2003), at 23, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04124.pdf. Thus, during this purported crisis, the numbers of physicians in Florida were actually increasing, not decreasing.

Proponents of the legislation now on the table don’t even claim to have a study supporting their position. Despite rationale arguments against the legislation and a stream of sworn testimony from medical malpractice victims, Republicans seem determined to enact the legislation. With super-majorities in both Chambers, and the support of Governor Ron DeSantis, nothing can stop them.

Groups like the Florida Justice Association have gone to the mats fighting the legislation. Florida residents can contact their representatives in Tallahassee to express dispeasure. Follow these links for politician contact information:

While not perfect, the jury system is the best apparatus for resolving disputed civil matters. Strict rules of evidence and sensible guidelines in the form of jury instructions, typically lead to the correct result. Appellate courts are there to scrutinize the process and the results. It’s a beautiful thing. The system does not need arbitrary damage caps, set by politicians sitting in Tallahassee sometimes wrongly influenced by self-interested powerful forces, to subvert the collective wisdom of “We the People.”

********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com and kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Legislation Limiting Access to Courts in Personal Injury Cases

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Mon, 17 Apr 2023 20:29:27 GMT

On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill passed by the Florida Legislature aimed at limiting the rights of individuals from seeking and obtaining civil redress in the courts for personal injuries. The bill is House Bill 837. Parts of the bill became effective when it was signed by DeSantis. It will change many existing laws in dramatic ways.

Statute of Limitations. The most obvious change is to limit the time period during which a personal injury case can be filed from four years to two years. This time limitation is known as the statute of limitations. Claims filed after the SOL period will be time-barred.

It is not unusual for individuals involved in accidents to wait years before deciding to pursue a claim. The reasons for delaying are varied but include not knowing a claim can be brought, personal disruption caused by the incident, injury recovery time, an ideological opposition to involving the civil justice system, and bad legal advice.

Proponents of the reduced statute of limitations period are seeking to limit the number of lawsuits that are filed. The opposite may happen. Most personal injury cases are resolved without a lawsuit being filed. Even in cases where a remedy is sought within two years of the incident, it is not unusual for those cases to be resolved without a lawsuit well after two years from the incident date. Reasons for this include injury healing time and ongoing negotiations.

Because of the shortened time period, lawsuits will have to be filed in many cases simply to preserve the right to a remedy even if the case would otherwise resolve amicably without filing. Once a lawsuit is filed, the contingency fee payable by the plaintiff upon recovery rises and the cost of handling the case increases. These factors make it more difficult to settle out of court.

Bottom line: the goal of limiting lawsuits by shortening the SOL will be offset by lawsuits having to be filed to keep from being time-barred. While some people will lose out on a remedy by going over the SOL, the legal system will not see a reduced burden. Hence, the measure is a net negative.

Comparative Fault/Contributory Fault. What is certain to harm many individuals is the measure barring the recovery of damages for personal injuries to anyone found by the trier of fact (judge or jury) to be more than 50% at-fault. This a drastic change from the law that had been in place for more than 50 years. The displaced law, outlined in sec. 768.81(3), Florida Statutes, reads as follows:

(3) APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.—In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.

Rather than an outright ban based on an arbitrary number, 768.81(3) allows a person to recover damages less his or her percentage of fault. This example makes the point: we represented a gentleman who rear-ended a large bus in broad daylight that was inexplicably stopped in the middle of the road with no other traffic in sight. Our client had to be pried out of his vehicle and was airlifted to the hospital with catastrophic injuries. At trial, we demonstrated through the presentation of evidence on the scientific theory known as “Looming” how our client could rear-end a vehicle in broad daylight without being 100% at fault. The jury awarded total damages in excess of $2.5 million and apportioned 65% of the fault to our client.

Under the bill signed into law last month by Gov. DeSantis, our client would have been entitled to nothing even though the jury found that the bus driver was 35% at-fault. Under the law applicable to our case, our client was able to recover a sizeable share of the $2.5 million. The new law now reads as follows:

768.81 Comparative fault.—
(6) GREATER PERCENTAGE OF FAULT.—In a negligence action to which this section applies, any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages. This subsection does not apply to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence pursuant to chapter 766.

Bad Faith. Insurance carriers have an affirmative duty to do all within reason to protect their insureds from having to pay personally in excess of insurance policy limits to resolve a case. In some instances, the failure of a carrier to act in good faith can result in the carrier rather than the insured being responsible for satisfying the excess amount. This language from sec. 621.155, Florida Statutes describes what constitutes a violation of the carrier’s duty:

Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests

The positive about this body of law is that it promotes proper claim handling. Unfortunately, HB 837 provides a safe harbor to carriers to delay and lowball.

Conclusion. Nearly every part of House Bill 837 is a gift to liability insurance carriers. While it is unlikely that premium rates will drop, it is virtually certain that insurance company profits will increase.

********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (jgale@jeffgalelaw.com and kgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Arbitration is Un-American

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 18:57:05 GMT

The 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, codifies the importance of jury trials in civil cases to the framework in the American Way. Here is the amendment’s simple language:

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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Jury trials allow everyday citizens, guided by the law and the facts, to pass judgment on civil matters between contesting parties. The concept is that the collective wisdom of juries consisting of our peers, devoid of bias and preference, will render just decisions. The system, which, in my view, is the greatest system devised by any society for handling such matters, has worked remarkably well.

Arbitration is a threat to the civil jury trial system. Wikipedia describes Arbitration as “a form of alternative dispute resolution that resolves disputes outside the judiciary courts. The dispute will be decided by one or more persons, which renders the ‘arbitration award'”. For the most part, arbitrators are lawyers and former judges. In Florida, court-appointed arbitrators must be members of The Florida Bar.

There are two main ways parties end up in arbitration. When it is by court-appointment, the parties must agree to arbitrate. Without this agreement, the case will stay within the judicial court system and proceed to a trial by jury unless the plaintiff, the complaining party, has requested a bench trial. The other way parties end up in arbitration is if the complaining party signed a document at the outset of his or her relationship with the other party consenting to resolve disputes through arbitration. Arbitration clauses are commonly found in consumer contracts and employment contracts. For example, the typical contract for cell phone services between customer and provider, say AT&T, will contain an arbitration provision. We’ve all signed these agreements without reading the fine print.

Some arbitration agreements have profound consequences. In Massage Envy Franchising, LLC v. Jane Doe, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1151 (Fla. 5th DCA May 27, 2022), a woman filed a multicount complaint against Massage Envy alleging that her massage therapist sexually assaulted her during a massage. She requested a jury trial. Massage Envy responded by filing a pleading seeking to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Massage Envy’s request. Massage Envy appealed the ruling. The 5th District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court, thus forcing the sexual assault claim to be decided by a paid arbitrator rather than a jury of everyday citizens. The arbitration provision in Massage Envy was contained within a sixteen-page Terms of Use Agreement Ms. Doe was handed when she checked in for her massage appointment.

Sadly, while arbitration is generally favored by the courts, Massage Envy, it can and should be challenged. Because arbitration is highly disfavored by plaintiffs, who prefer their day in court, a significant amount of case law has been developed over the years through challenges. This is the subject of another blog.

*********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // The Federalist Society Opposes Civil Jury Trials for Average Citizens

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Fri, 29 Jul 2022 22:33:35 GMT

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows:

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 first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. They were proposed by James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, in a speech before Congress on June 8, 1789. Here’s what he said in that speech about jury trials:

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre—existent rights of nature.

The Federalist Society is a conservative American legal organization. Former members include current U.S. Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. The society’s logo is a silhouette of James Madison and its website displays his portrait at the bottom.

Ironically, the society and the members it breeds to become legislators and judges disdain civil jury trials. Their actions are impeding and denying the very right Madison believed was essential to securing the liberty of the people. Examples include upholding jury trial waiver agreements in contracts, enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements, allowing class action waivers, legislating and enforcing stringent medical malpractice presuit requirements, limitations on discovery, and limits on voir dire.

The reason is simple. The civil jury trial system is the great equalizer. With the right legal representation, which is made possible through contingency fee agreements, the little guy can fight toe-to-toe against the largest corporations to achieve justice. Nothing bothers big guys more than not being able to push little guys around.

Justia Elevate TeamjorgecontrerasEdit Profile

**********************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email to learn your legal rights.