BUS-FPX 3021_ Vasquez_Susanna_Assessment 2-1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Capella University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3021
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by MajorPelicanPerson979
Title: McDonald's Coffee Case - A Landmark in Tort Law
Introduction:
The McDonald's Coffee Case, formally known as Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, is a widely recognized and often misunderstood legal case in the field of tort law. This case, which unfolded in the early 1990s, revolves around a woman named Stella Liebeck, who sustained severe burns from a cup of hot coffee she purchased from a McDonald's drive-thru. The case brought attention to the concept of product liability, negligence, and the role of the civil justice system in awarding damages. This paper explores the McDonald's Coffee Case, examining its background, the legal issues involved, the outcome, and its lasting impact on tort law.
Background:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, ordered a cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As she attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee while sitting in a parked car, the cup spilled, causing severe third-degree burns to her groin, thighs, and buttocks. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days and underwent multiple surgeries. Her medical bills amounted to approximately $20,000. When McDonald's was approached by Liebeck's attorney with a settlement demand of $20,000, the company refused, leading to a lawsuit.
Legal Issues:
The McDonald's Coffee Case raised several legal issues, primarily centered around product liability and negligence. Liebeck's legal team argued that McDonald's was liable for her injuries due to the following reasons:
1.
Temperature of the Coffee: The coffee served by McDonald's was extraordinarily hot, reportedly around 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liebeck's attorneys argued that this was
dangerously hotter than industry standards and posed a significant risk to customers.
2.
Inadequate Warning: McDonald's had not provided sufficient warning or caution about the extreme temperature of their coffee. This lack of warning, according to Liebeck's lawyers, demonstrated negligence on the part of the company.
3.
Failure to Investigate Previous Incidents: McDonald's was aware of more than 700 previous reports of coffee burns but had not taken adequate measures to address the issue,
which was presented as a further point of negligence.
Outcome:
“In August 1994, the jury found McDonald's liable for Liebeck's injuries and awarded her
$2.7 million in punitive damages and $160,000 for medical expenses and other compensatory damages” (Rutherford, D. G. (1998)). However, the judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The case was later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, but the publicity surrounding it brought widespread attention to the issue of frivolous lawsuits and excessive jury awards.
Impact on Tort Law:
The McDonald's Coffee Case has had a lasting impact on the field of tort law. While it is often cited as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, the case serves as a valuable lesson in product liability and negligence. Several key takeaways and impacts can be identified:
1.
Product Liability: The case emphasized the importance of product liability and the duty of companies to provide safe products to consumers. Manufacturers must consider potential risks and hazards associated with their products.
2.
Role of Warnings: “According to Borchgrevink, Sciarini, and Susskind (2007), the court's decision was not whimsical, but predicated on the knowledge and behavior of McDonald's as represented and displayed by their employees and agents”. It highlighted the need for clear and adequate warnings on potentially dangerous products. Companies are obligated to provide consumers with information that helps them make informed decisions regarding product use.
3.
Tort Reform: The McDonald's Coffee Case contributed to the tort reform movement, which sought to limit excessive damages in personal injury cases. It sparked discussions about the role of punitive damages and the need for legal reform in tort law.
4.
Public Perception: The case brought attention to the need for public awareness and responsible reporting on legal matters. It serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate and balanced reporting in high-profile cases.
Conclusion:
The McDonald's Coffee Case, often misconstrued as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, is
a significant landmark in the field of tort law. While it did result in a substantial award to the plaintiff, the case raised important questions about product liability, the duty of manufacturers to provide safe products, and the role of warnings. “An example of a business that may have been impacted by the District Court's ruling is the company Starbucks. Starbucks has been committed to ethically sourcing and roasting the highest quality arabica coffee in the world” (Starbucks,
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
2023). It also prompts discussion about tort reform and responsible reporting. Ultimately, the case illustrates the complexities of tort law and its enduring impact on legal practice and public perception.
References
Borchgrevink, C. P., Sciarini, M. P., & Susskind, A. M. (2007). Hot Beverages at Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Drive-Thru Windows. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14(1),
37-46. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.14.1.37
Rutherford, D. G. (1998). Lessons From Liebeck. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010- 8804(98)80300-5
Starbucks. (2023). Our Company. https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/