Famous Hot Coffee Case

After reviewing the videos and reading the articles, Leibeck v. McDonald’s case involves the tort of negligence. In the textbook, The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, negligence is stated, “All persons, as established by state tort law, have the duty to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others. Breach of that duty, which causes injury, is negligence” (Lau, 2012, p. 223). Due to McDonald’s negligence and callous behavior regarding the temperature of the coffee served, Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns when she spilled the coffee in her lap. “Negligence is about breaching the duty we owe others, as determined by sate tort law” (Lau, 2012, p. 223). In fact, McDonald’s

In this essay, I will discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck vs McDonald’s Restaurant 's tort lawsuit, where the plaintiff was severely burned after wasting coffee purchased from the drive-through window of the restaurant, into her lap. I will explore the basis of her claim against McDonald 's and identify if the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Additionally, I will examine why Ms. Liebeck 's lawyers believed that McDonald 's was liable to Ms. Liebeck. Likewise, I will reveal whether or not I think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give the consumer third-degree burns. Finally, I will disclose how the jury decides the case and why I think the jury decided the case this way.

1. Breach of an express warranty - An express warranty is a guarantee from the seller of a product that specifies the extent to which the quality or performance of the product is assured and states the conditions under which the product can be returned, replaced, or repaired. It is often given in the form of a specific, written "Warranty" document. However, a warranty may also arise by operation of law based upon the seller's description of the goods, and perhaps their source and quality, and any material deviation from that specification would violate the guarantee. For example, an advertisement describing a product is often full of express warranties; the product must substantially conform to what is advertised. Many advertisers insert disclaimers for this purpose (e.g., "actual color/mileage/results may vary", or "not shown actual size"). Commonly, written warranties will assure the buyer that an article is of good quality and against defects in "materials and workmanship." A warranty may also apply to services that

I can’t show exactly where in the U.C.C. it says this, but that’s the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C. This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under UCC 2-314. Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v. Maxwell Shoe Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) Also, there’s a case that expounded upon this issue and told us that a baseball bat can’t crack when it’s used normally. Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1993). The information that can be clearly drawn from these cases is if someone buys a baseball bat, it must be in the condition that was represented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be in sufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from the party of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained. Also, as if those cases weren’t enough, the UCC 2-314 demands that goods must be in good condition when they are

The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted to a new site on the body, and other medical assistance that reach over $100,000. She and her family tried to reach McDonals to get a settlement for the damages, but was welcomed with denial and lack of cooperation in settlements and coverage for medical expenses, so the family decided to sue the company for gross negligence.

The essay will firstly explore what is clearly working within the system in support of protecting consumer rights. The ACL will be looked at in detail with a focus on product safety as an example.

I heard about the case, and like most people, my opinion was formed with inaccurate information. The information was provided via television and radio, but there must have been information in the newspaper as well. Several radio talk shows used the case and their opinion to their benefit. People from all over called in to share their opinion, similar to what we saw in the video. I remember I share the same opinion with some of them, even though none of us had our facts straight. I was transitioning from San Diego to Los Angeles when this was going on. It was very interesting to see how different the opinions from one city to the other over the “frivolous injury” case. (A, 2016) Regardless of the difference in personal opinion, none of the comments and discussion I remember had any of the facts straight. 20 years after the case, most people still don’t have the facts straight from the case. Ant that is the real problem. We, the average citizen, do not get involved or even try to find out more

It is unreasonable to assume that Mr. Imry had knowledge of the warranty disclaimer’s terms, even though the language of the disclaimer itself met the requirements of conspicuousness, given that WGC failed to call his attention to those terms by using soothing language to disguise the actual contents of the “…IMPORTANT WARRANTY POLICY.” Mr. Imry had no reason to be aware that he was agreeing to waive the implied warranty of merchantability. Therefore, there was procedural unconscionability when he was unfairly surprised by this provision as he attempted to recover damages based on the warranty he reasonably thought he had after the loss of his home and livelihood, and the injury of his

McDonald's Restaurants, the infamous McDonald's coffee case. A 1994 product liability lawsuit, a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. In reality this really should have taken McDonald’s out of business, However she was compensated 2.86 Million dollars. McDonalds is one of the world’s biggest franchises, by becoming one of the world’s leading foodservice retailers in more than 100 countries. McDonalds has more than 36,000 resturaunts serving approximately 69 million people EVERYDAY per http://www.mcdonalds.com/ In my own opinion I feel like in the case the woman who sustained injuries was well taken care of. However, in Tort Reform it has changed so much over the years in the case 2.86 Million dollars may seem like a great amount of money, when you think about recovery fees, doctor fees, lawyer fees, court fees did she really have 2.86 million dollars? I strongly feel that this law has too many loopholes and it doesn’t need to be in place. During my research I didn’t see anything reason for it to still be into place. I did not find the tort

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

S 402.A Special liability of seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer states “One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or his property”. For

Lemon laws, not everyone is aware that such a law exists. If everyone in the world knows about this law and how it can protect the customer from malfunctions and defect, it would be a law used regularly. Not all filed claims go to court and the ones that do, it’s either one or the other side that wins or losses. The term lemon is used not only to describe fruit, but also automobiles and other goods. In the 1800s it was a word used to describe unpleasant people and in the 1900s lemons began to refer to items that were worthless. Lemon law is just a nickname for any state or federal law that provides a buyer with a product that doesn’t live to the products worth and function. “The federal lemon law is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act” (Family Financial Education Foundation) that applies to all U.S. states. State

The Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurants case was one of the biggest tort reform cases. A tort is a term used for a personal injury, which allows the injured party to receive compensation for injuries and damages. The American legal system allows anyone in accordance to the law taking the proper steps to sue a person or corporation that may be responsible for his or her injuries. This case is still one that people argue today about whether this was negligence on behalf of the plaintiff, while some argue this was a product liability case. After this famous case was over and utilizing comparative negligence principles, state bills were created that limited the monetary amount that could be sought in corporate lawsuits.

The Latin principle of caveat emptor literally meaning let the buyer beware, has been followed for many years by the English courts in the context of business transactions. Pre the industrial revolution the action for breach of contractual rights needed a written warranty otherwise action could only be brought on the grounds of fraud. The reasoning for such action was based on the manner in which business was conducted, that is, namely at small fairs where buyers could inspect the goods and haggle accordingly. This is evidenced in cases such as Chandelor v Lopus in which a plaintiff brought an action against the defendant in relation to a Bezoar stone which was thought to have medicinal properties. In this instance, the majority of the

Had they assessed the mug preceding the deal, they may have altered their opinion. A more normal sample is a utilized auto exchange between two private gatherings. The buyer must tackle the obligation of altogether inquiring about and assessing the auto maybe taking it to a technician for a more intensive look before settling the deal. In the event that something comes up after the deal, perhaps a transmission disappointment, it is not the seller's obligation. Carport deals offer another illustration of caveat emptor, in which all deals are last and nothing is ensured. Caveat emptor was the tenet for most buys and land deals preceding the Industrial Revolution, despite the fact that sellers expect a great deal more obligation regarding the respectability of their goods in the present day. Individuals devoured far less goods and ordinarily from nearby sources proceeding the eighteenth Century, bringing about not very many consumer insurance laws generally limited to weights and measures. Today, most deals in the U.S. fall under the standard of caveat venditor, which implies let the seller beware, by which goods are secured by a suggested guarantee of merchantability. Unless generally publicized or arranged with the buyer, almost all consumer products are ensured to work if utilized for their planned reason. For instance, a consumer who buys a coffee processor that does not have the ability to crush coffee beans may give back the product for a full discount under an inferred guarantee of merchantability. Yet, in the event that the same buyer bought a utilized coffee processor at a thrift shop stamped sold as seems to be, giving back the product later may demonstrate troublesome. While caveat emptor is no more the guideline for consumer exchanges, it's critical to know when the special case