Unit 4 DB law
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Post University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
LAW101
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by SuperMorningAlbatross29
First, I think Liebeck established the first element of negligence, which is the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed the plaintiff. According to the resources, people and businesses have an obligation to exhibit a reasonable degree of caution and prudence when engaging in actions that could affect others. This is called the duty of care. In this case, McDonald’s had a duty of care to serve coffee that was not dangerously hot and could cause severe burns to its customers. Second, I think Liebeck established the second element
of negligence, which is the breach of the duty of care by the defendant. According to the resources, a breach occurs when the defendant fails to live up to the expected standard of care2. In this case, McDonald’s breached its duty of care by serving coffee that was between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which was much hotter than the coffee served by other establishments3. The resources also indicate that McDonald’s knew that its coffee was causing serious burns to hundreds of people but did not change its policy or warn its customers. This shows that McDonald’s was not acting as carefully as a reasonable person or business would have under the same circumstances. Third, I think Liebeck established the third element of negligence, which is the causation of harm to the plaintiff by the defendant’s actions. According to the resources, there are two types of causation: cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact means that the defendant’s actions
were the actual cause of the plaintiff’s harm. In contrast, proximate cause means that the
defendant’s actions were the legal cause of the plaintiff’s harm. In this case, I think both types of
causation were present. McDonald’s coffee was the cause-in-fact of Liebeck’s harm because she
would not have suffered third-degree burns if the coffee were not so hot. McDonald’s coffee was
also the proximate cause of Liebeck’s harm because it was foreseeable that serving such hot
coffee could seriously hurt customers who spilled it on themselves. Fourth, I think Liebeck
established the fourth element of negligence, the actual harm or damage suffered by the plaintiff.
According to the resources, the plaintiff must show that they suffered an injury or loss because of
the defendant’s negligence1. In this case, Liebeck suffered severe third-degree burns on over 16
percent of her body, including her inner thighs and genitals. She had to be hospitalized for eight
days, underwent skin grafts and other treatments, and had a two-year recovery period3. She also
incurred medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. These are all examples of actual
harm or damage Liebeck experienced because of McDonald’s negligence. Therefore, based on
these four elements of negligence, I would have decided for Liebeck and awarded her
compensatory damages to cover her medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. I
would also have awarded her punitive damages to punish McDonald’s for its reckless disregard
for customer safety and to deter similar conduct. However, I would not have awarded her the full
$2.7 million the jury initially granted because that was excessive and unreasonable. I would have
followed the trial judge’s reduction of the punitive damages to three times the compensatory
damages, which would have been $640,000. This would have been a fair and just amount that
reflected the severity of Liebeck’s injuries and the culpability of McDonald’s.
What Are California Accident Fault Laws?. https://www.personalinjury-law.com/blog/california-
accident-fault-laws
Punitive Damages in a Personal Injury Case - J&Y Law. https://jnylaw.com/punitive-damages-in-
a-personal-injury-case/
Turbe v. Government of Virgin Islands, 90-3843 - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 894486599.
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/turbe-v-government-of-894486599
A
History
of
Lawsuits
and
Class
Actions
Against
McDonald’s.
https://www.ferrarolaw.com/blog/2021/april/a-history-of-lawsuits-and-class-actions-against-
mcdonalds/
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help