What Is the Largest Injury Lawsuit Against McDonalds?
The largest injury lawsuit against McDonald’s in terms of jury verdict is the 2022 Choto v. Dorothy D. Inc. case, which resulted in an $18,794,132.14 jury award for a slip and fall at a Lomita, California location. The most famous injury lawsuit against McDonald’s, however, remains the 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald’s hot coffee case, which produced a $2.7 million punitive damages award before reduction. These two cases represent very different types of injury claims and very different outcomes, and understanding both tells you a lot about how McDonald’s handles litigation and what courts are willing to award.
The Hot Coffee Case: Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994)
No injury lawsuit against McDonald’s is more talked about or more misunderstood than Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, Case No. D-202-CV-199302419, tried in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1994.
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old passenger in a parked car, purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through. When she removed the lid, the coffee spilled into her lap. She was not driving. The car was not moving.
The burns she sustained were not minor. McDonald’s was serving coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, roughly 30 degrees hotter than coffee served at most home brewing machines and far above what burn experts testified was safe. At 180 degrees, liquid causes third-degree burns within seconds of skin contact.
Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, including her inner thighs and groin. She was hospitalized for eight days and required skin grafts. She was temporarily disabled for two years following the incident and was permanently disfigured.
She initially asked McDonald’s to cover her $11,000 in medical bills. McDonald’s offered $800. Her attorney, Reed Morgan, then requested $90,000. McDonald’s refused again.
At trial, the jury learned that McDonald’s had received over 700 prior complaints from consumers burned by its coffee at the temperatures it served. Despite those complaints, McDonald’s had continued its policy and had not lowered coffee temperatures.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent responsible for the spill. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, a figure they arrived at based on approximately two days of McDonald’s coffee revenue at the time.
The trial judge later reduced the total award to $640,000. The parties settled before an appeal was decided, for a confidential amount. Reports indicate Liebeck received less than $600,000 total, a significant portion of which went to medical costs and attorney fees.
Adjusted for inflation, the original $2.7 million punitive award equals approximately $5.9 million in 2025 dollars. The case is formally cited as Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald’s International, Inc.
The media characterized this case as frivolous for decades. It was not. It was a product liability case in which a corporation with documented knowledge of 700 prior burns continued serving dangerously hot coffee and refused to compensate a seriously injured elderly woman for her medical bills. The jury’s punitive award reflected exactly what punitive damages are designed to punish: willful, wanton, and reckless indifference to consumer safety.
The Largest Verdict: Choto v. Dorothy D. Inc. (2022)
The largest pure injury verdict against McDonald’s in documented court records is Choto v. Dorothy D. Inc. dba McDonald’s Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV12764, decided on November 17, 2022.
The jury awarded Jonathan Choto $18,794,132.14.
Here is what happened. On May 1, 2018, Jonathan Choto, then 28 years old, was a patron at a McDonald’s in Lomita, California, owned and operated by franchisee Dorothy D. Inc. He slipped on liquid left on the floor by a McDonald’s crew member. Both feet went out from under him and he landed directly on his lower back.
The floor hazard was the result of McDonald’s failing to follow its own floor inspection policy. The jury found that the failure to conduct scheduled inspections resulted in a greasy, slippery coating accumulating on the floor that should have been identified and cleaned.
What made the damages so substantial was the specific nature of Choto’s prior medical history combined with where he landed. He had undergone two previous lumbar spine surgeries following a 2015 work injury. His second surgery had been completed just 16 months before the McDonald’s fall. When he landed, he landed directly on the exact sites of both prior surgical repairs, at a point when his spine was still vulnerable. The fall converted a manageable back condition into a permanent disability requiring a spinal cord stimulator implant to manage pain.
McDonald’s admitted liability. The defense only contested the extent of the damages.
The jury awarded $365,962.59 in past medical expenses, future medical costs, and $16 million in future non-economic damages for pain and suffering alone. The full $18,794,132.14 verdict was entered by Judge Rafael Ongkeko.
This case is recognized as the largest verdict against McDonald’s for an orthopedic injury. It ranked as the 11th largest personal injury jury verdict in California for the entire year of 2022. It is also considered one of the largest spinal cord stimulator verdicts in the country.
The $5 Million Federal Verdict: Slip and Fall with Spinal Injury
A separate federal jury returned a verdict exceeding $5 million against McDonald’s in another slip and fall case involving a 59-year-old woman who suffered a severe spinal injury. The case established that McDonald’s failure to comply with its own floor inspection policy, which allowed a greasy coating to accumulate, was the direct cause of the fall and injury.
This verdict is notable because it preceded the Choto case and helped establish the legal framework that plaintiffs and their attorneys have used to hold McDonald’s accountable for floor maintenance failures at the franchise level.
The Hot Coffee Legacy: Subsequent Burns Cases
The Liebeck case did not end hot beverage litigation against McDonald’s. It opened the door.
In the years following the 1994 verdict, additional lawsuits were filed by consumers burned by hot McDonald’s beverages. A notable subsequent case settled during trial for a reported $15 million involving injuries from a sink in a related premises. Multiple other burn injury cases have been settled confidentially.
The Liebeck case established that McDonald’s had documented knowledge of burn injuries caused by its coffee temperature policy. Any subsequent plaintiff in a hot beverage burn case could point to that documented history as evidence that McDonald’s continued to serve dangerously hot drinks despite knowing the risk. That prior knowledge strengthens every subsequent claim and likely contributed to McDonald’s willingness to settle subsequent burn cases before trial.
Other Major McDonald’s Injury Cases
Beyond the headline cases, McDonald’s has faced substantial injury litigation across multiple categories.
A 2023 verdict found McDonald’s and a franchise holder liable on May 10 of that year in a premises-related injury case. The specific award amount in that case is part of a broader pattern of franchise-level premises liability claims that have produced multi-million dollar results.
McDonald’s has also faced worker injury claims at significant scale. These cases involve employees rather than customers and proceed under different legal frameworks including workers’ compensation and OSHA regulations. Settlements in these cases are typically confidential but have run into millions of dollars across multiple jurisdictions.
Why McDonald’s Loses These Cases
Understanding what is the largest injury lawsuit against McDonald’s requires understanding why McDonald’s keeps losing.
McDonald’s operates primarily through franchises. The franchisee owns and operates the individual restaurant. McDonald’s Corporation sets the standards, policies, and operating procedures that franchisees must follow. When a franchisee fails to follow those standards and a customer is injured, both the franchisee and McDonald’s Corporation can be named as defendants.
The hot coffee case established a pattern that courts have applied in subsequent cases. McDonald’s sets policies. McDonald’s knows when those policies create risks. When McDonald’s continues policies despite documented harm and a customer is seriously injured, juries respond with significant verdicts.
In the Liebeck case, the key evidence was McDonald’s own internal records showing 700 prior burn complaints. In the Choto case, the key evidence was McDonald’s own floor inspection policy and documentation that the inspections were not being performed. In both cases, the company’s own records became the plaintiff’s most powerful evidence.
The $10 Billion Byron Allen Discrimination Lawsuit
For context on the full scope of McDonald’s legal exposure, it is worth noting that the largest lawsuit ever filed against McDonald’s was not an injury case. In 2023, media mogul Byron Allen filed a $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit against McDonald’s, alleging the company illegally refused to purchase advertising from Black-owned media companies. The case was filed in federal court and proceeded toward a July 2025 trial date before the parties reached a settlement in June 2025. The financial terms of that settlement were not publicly disclosed, though it resolved both the $10 billion primary case and a related $100 million lawsuit simultaneously.
That case is not a personal injury lawsuit. It is included here only to provide a complete picture of the scale of legal actions McDonald’s has faced. For injury claims specifically, the Choto $18.79 million verdict and the Liebeck case remain the definitive benchmarks.
What These Cases Mean for Consumers
The documented history of injury verdicts against McDonald’s carries real implications for anyone injured at a McDonald’s location.
McDonald’s floor inspection policies are a matter of court record. If you are injured in a slip and fall at any McDonald’s location and floor inspection records are missing, irregular, or non-existent, that gap is legally significant. Attorneys pursuing these cases routinely request franchise inspection logs as early discovery.
Temperature policies for hot beverages are similarly documented. If you sustain burns from a McDonald’s hot beverage, the Liebeck record establishes a decades-long history of the company serving beverages at temperatures that burn experts have testified are dangerously high.
McDonald’s typically admits liability in floor cases where surveillance footage or witness testimony is clear and instead contests damages. The Choto case was litigated entirely on damages after McDonald’s admitted fault. That strategy can backfire when jurors see photographic evidence of the injury and hear from medical experts about permanent impairment.
Statute of Limitations and What to Do After a McDonald’s Injury
If you are injured at a McDonald’s location, time matters immediately.
In most states, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury. California, where both the Choto case and several other significant McDonald’s verdicts occurred, operates on a two-year limit for premises liability claims.
Document everything at the scene. Request video footage as soon as possible. McDonald’s restaurants have surveillance cameras, and footage is typically overwritten on a rolling schedule. Your attorney can send a preservation letter to secure that footage before it is gone.
Seek medical attention immediately even if your injuries feel minor at first. Spinal injuries in particular often worsen over 24 to 72 hours. The Choto case succeeded in part because the medical documentation of the progression of his injuries was thorough and consistent.
Report the incident to the manager on duty and request a written incident report. Get the names of any witnesses. Take photographs of the floor condition, the area where you fell, and any signage or absence of signage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the largest injury lawsuit against McDonald’s?
The largest jury verdict for a personal injury case against McDonald’s is $18,794,132.14 in Choto v. Dorothy D. Inc., entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court on November 17, 2022. The most famous injury case is the 1994 Liebeck hot coffee case, which produced a $2.7 million punitive damages award before judicial reduction and confidential settlement.
How much did Stella Liebeck actually receive from McDonald’s?
The jury initially awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages plus $160,000 in compensatory damages. The trial judge reduced the total to $640,000. The parties then settled confidentially before an appeal was decided. Reports indicate Liebeck received less than $600,000, out of which medical costs and attorney fees were paid.
Can you sue McDonald’s for a slip and fall?
Yes. McDonald’s and its franchisees have faced multiple multi-million dollar verdicts for slip and fall injuries caused by wet or greasy floors. Liability typically hinges on whether McDonald’s failed to follow its own inspection and maintenance policies.
Does McDonald’s settle injury lawsuits out of court?
McDonald’s settles many cases confidentially. In cases where liability is clear, such as the Choto slip and fall, McDonald’s admitted fault and only contested damages. The company settled the Liebeck hot coffee case confidentially after the punitive verdict was reduced by the trial judge.
What was the biggest non-injury lawsuit against McDonald’s?
Byron Allen’s $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit, filed in 2023 and settled in June 2025, is the largest lawsuit ever filed against McDonald’s by claimed dollar amount. It was not an injury case but a discrimination claim over advertising practices with Black-owned media companies.
Final Word
The answer to what is the largest injury lawsuit against McDonald’s depends on how you define largest. By jury verdict dollar amount, the Choto case at $18.79 million is the verified record holder for a personal injury claim. By cultural impact, documented corporate knowledge of risk, and lasting legal precedent, the Liebeck hot coffee case remains the most significant McDonald’s injury lawsuit in history.
Both cases share a common element. In both, McDonald’s had its own internal records that documented the risk and its own policies that were not being followed. Juries do not respond well to corporations that know about dangers and do nothing. That lesson, established in Albuquerque in 1994 and reaffirmed in Los Angeles in 2022, remains the foundation of every significant injury verdict McDonald’s has faced.