& Savage, 2010, pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort, the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases, Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonalds, have been a pinnacle “poster child” for tort reform in the United States. In 2002, frivolous lawsuits cost taxpayers over $233 billion (Insideprison.com, 2006). What is considered a frivolous lawsuit? It is when an attorney files a
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. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, while she ordered a coffee from McDonald’s. Liebeck’s nephew parked
In February 22, 1992 a man by the name of Chris pulls his 1989 Ford Probe into the drive-thru of an Albuquerque, New Mexico McDonalds. Chris ordered a coffee for his grandmother, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck. Upon receiving the coffee Chris pulls into a parking space so Stella can introduce cream and sugar to her coffee. A 1989 Ford Probe lacks cupholders and features a slanted dashboard. Thus, Stella placed the coffee near her lap and opened the Styrofoam lid. At that moment, 180-degree liquid saturated
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
Introduction: The famous 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants law case, commonly known as “the hot coffee lawsuit” ignited a debate in the U.S on product accountability. The case brought about from the austere burns Mrs. Liebeck got from her coffee fall. Having bought coffee from McDonald’s, Liebeck spoken to her grandson to stop the car so that she could mix the sugar to her coffee. She positioned the cup on her lap but it got spilled triggering a third degree burn to six percent of her body and
tort case between the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck and the defendant, McDonald's. This case became a very famous over the country because the U.S. was discussing over tort reform. “A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it at a McDonald's drive-through” (wikipedia.org). On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck who is a 79-year-old woman ordered a
that of Liebeck v. McDonalds. In this case Ms. Liebeck, a 79 year old woman from New Mexico, ordered a cup of coffee from a McDonalds drive thru, and when adding cream and sugar, spilt that coffee on her, thus receiving 3rd degree burns from the hot coffee. Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital for treatment totaling around $10,000 in fees. She sued the fast food chain, and was awarded by a jury $2.86 million dollars in damages (the trial judge reduced this to $640,000) (Liebeck v. McDonald's
Introduction This assignment is regarding the Liebeck vs McDonalds case back in 1992. The issues involved are discussed thoroughly as well as the difference between consumer protection laws in Malaysia and also the United States where the case took place. This assignment will also discuss the implications of the case and also businesses/consumers responsibility when handling accident prone products. Question 1 Major issues 1. The 180 degrees coffee caused full thickness or third degree
those who prove their cases with the monetary value they deserve based off of their loss. When people say that we need a tort reform it is usually because they hear of these major headlining cases that seem outrageous such as the infamous 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald 's case. Another reason is that they believe that we should not trust jury trials when it comes to these cases as well. I will discuss several reasons as to why many people believe that we need tort reform and then I will present evidence from
exert collective power over the employer to negotiate the terms at the equal front. Reference Shane and Rosenthal, Employment Law Deskbook, § 16.02 (1999) Charles J. Muhl, Monthly Labor Review, January 2001 Do you think the punitive damages in Liebeck v. McDonald’s were justified? Why, or why not? Conflicts within business entities are a common occurrence. As a result of this, business enterprises need to develop comprehensive and realistic dispute resolution policies that guide on how to settle