Frivolous or Not? Two Law Suit Case Studies

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

In reference to the case study, subject matter jurisdiction could possibly apply. Since Margolin suit claims negligence on the parts of Novelty Now and Funny Faces for using PYR in their product the case could be heard in a federal claims court. The violation of FDA regulations makes the case a stronger candidate for this type of venue.

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

The story of one of the most famous worker’s compensation cases, Karen Silkwood vs. Kerr-McGee, was the inspiration for hundreds of articles, several books, televisions shows, and a movie.

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.

The court case was held in Orange county California the jury awarded the plaintiffs 127.8 million dollars. THis would become one of the largest product liability

As stated in the title, business owners should be able to hire/fire anyone without interference from the government. Far too often do we hear of frivolous lawsuits in which the plaintiff is simply seeking a “pay day” from a business. In fact, 55 % of these cases are usually ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Common Good 2012). This can cost the defendants (businesses) $1.1 million on average (Glater 2008). If the current government regulated practices were allowed to continue, businesses won’t be able keep up.

At the beginning of the documentary, I thought that the whole situation with the hot coffee was pretty trivial. On one hand, I really believe that there are a lot of people that just want to take advantage of the legal system to sue whomever they want to get some free money. However, this does not mean that everyone is like that; there are many people that truly deserve to be compensated for their injuries. So, when I saw the proves, the burns, and how the media and private companies took advantage of the situation to get the attention of the general public and talk about the Tort Reform as something good that could benefit them, I really changed my mind about the case. The Tort reform is just another way that companies can protect themselves

In summary, the outcome of the Liebeck v. McDonald's case resulted in Stella Liebeck having the ability to hold McDonald's accountable for her third-degree burns.