ITLA President Sara M. Salger: Corporations' bottom line

The following letter by ITLA President Sara M. Salger was published in the Chicago Tribune on June 3, 2025.

Corporations’ bottom line

Those trying to tip the scales of justice against individuals in favor of wealthy and powerful businesses have long cited — and mischaracterized — the McDonald’s hot coffee case to support their push to close courthouse doors to individuals hurt due to no fault of their own.

Robert Tyson continued that practice in his column (“Sequel to 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee case is now $47 million more expensive, May 27th”) by failing to share that the $2.9 million dollar verdict awarded to a woman who suffered horrific injuries after scalding hot coffee spilled on her lap, was later reduced to $640,000.

The myth of the McDonald’s case suggests the restaurant giant was victimized by an unscrupulous plaintiff. But the truth is that the case proves the system works: the trial judge reduced the damages awarded by the jury and the parties later settled for a confidential amount.

Moreover, the jury learned that some 700 other people — including children — had reported burns by McDonald’s dangerously hot coffee. That case began as a response to one person’s injury but ended up highlighting a broader issue of how a company acted in a way that put numerous customers in danger. That is the proper function of our civil justice system.

When businesses are careless and people get hurt, those businesses should be held accountable. It's their responsibility to ensure their products are handled safely. And if juries award large verdicts, it’s because they hear evidence of atrocious misconduct or vast human injury.

How do you get the attention of giant corporations, worth billions of dollars, and force them to stop making people sick, injuring or killing them? You target their bottom line. Sadly, money is often the only language they speak.

Tyson also referenced a recent $50 million verdict against Starbucks in the case of a delivery driver severely burned by a mishandled tray of hot beverages. As with the McDonald’s case, there is a judicial mechanism to review the jury’s verdict and determine if it’s appropriate. Indeed, as is its right, Starbucks is appealing that verdict.

The term “nuclear verdict,” used disparagingly by Tyson, is dramatic. It’s intentionally over-the-top rhetoric employed by corporations and the insurance industry to mislead the public and undermine support for a legal system that protects the little guy’s ability to seek justice and hold corporations accountable for harmful behavior.

Sara M. Salger, President
Illinois Trial Lawyers Association