1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incidents? Was the lawsuit “frivolous” as some people thought, or serious business?
The major issues in this case include how hot the coffee should be, when to draw the line on making a case outrageous and how corporations are supposed to please customers without worrying about being sued. I believe that the lawsuit was frivolous because of the amount of money that was being asked for. It is common sense that when you order coffee or any other hot beverage that contents will be hot. I feel that it was the fault of Liebeck and although this is the case, McDonald’s should have paid the medical bills and settled out of court before it was blown out of proportion.
2. …show more content…
This statement was supposed to help McDonald’s but in turn helped Liebeck.
4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you most likely have supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the pickle burn case?
If I were a juror in this case or the pickle burn case, I would have most likely supported McDonald’s. I feel that people should show a little more common sense when they order food. Most people want to get their food while it is still hot so why don’t people sue when food is too cold? On the other hand, McDonald’s should make the warning on the cup larger and warn consumers as they order.
5. What are the similarities and differences between the coffee burn case and the pickle burn case? Does one represent a more serious threat to consumer harm? What should McDonald's, and other fast food restaurants, do about hot food, such as hamburgers, when consumers are injured?
Both the coffee case and the pickle burn case have one big thing in common. Both cases are against McDonald’s. Both cases are based on the same complaint, too hot, but the burns resulted from different sources. As I stated above, fast food restaurants should make labels larger as well as give a verbal warning. Maybe they should make the entire wrapper or cup a warning. I cannot however agree to lower the temperature. I feel that if a customer wishes to have a cooler beverage, ask the server to pour a little cool water in it to cool it off. As far as food is
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
There are two major lawsuits which the main populace has defined as frivolous. One of those cases is the McDonald’s split coffee case. This is the case where the plaintiff spilled her coffee and was rumored to sue McDonald’s for 2.7 million dollars and win. The other’s case is the Pearson dry cleaning case where a man sued Chung Dry Cleaner’s 54 million dollars for losing his pants. The plaintiff won in the McDonald’s Case and the Plaintiff lost in the Dry clearance’s case. In this paper we are going to dissect each case by the facts, the law, the issues, the ethical issues, the defendants preventative
This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This
The breach of contract filed by McDonalds against Simon Marketing was eventually tossed out of court as the US District Justice ruled the case did not belong in federal court. Simon Marketing filed suit against McDonalds on October 23, 2001 asking for 1.9 billion in damages on charges of fraud, breach of contract, breach of licensing agreement and defamation. Simon Marketing alleged that by keeping them in the dark during the nearly year long FBI investigation, McDonald’s ran a fraudulent campaign to intentionally destroy Simon for its own public relations and financial benefit.” (Anonymous, 2002, para. 3-6).
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.
Through the discovery and length of the case it was discovered that the company had a large number of complains with their coffee. It was also discovered that the coffee was made to be from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause third degree burns in a few seconds. When it came to allocations, 80% of the blame was placed on McDonals and the remaining was placed on Stella; this
Both lawyers explained what they thought was fair, and McDonald’s father spoke on his son’s behalf. As McDonald spoke he expressed his remorse and regret for the incident and said he wants to move on.
However, Lambert’s Café is first and foremost a restaurant. In Coomer, the Court examined a case where a patron at a baseball game sustained injury after being hit in the eye with a hotdog thrown into the audience by a baseball team’s mascot (Id. at 188). The Court asserted, based on findings in Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo. Banc 1982) that “if a person voluntarily consents to accept the danger of a known and appreciated risk, that person may not sure another for failing to protect him from it” (Id. at 189). They then asserted that if that is the case, the plaintiff would not be owed any duty of care by defendant (Id. at 192). However, they found that having a hotdog thrown at one’s person during a baseball event does not constitute an “inherent risk,” since it is not a common practice during the performance of an average baseball game (Id. at 202). The Court concluded that the team “…[owed] the fans a duty to use reasonable care in conducting the Hotdog Launch and can be held liable for damages…”(Id. at 203).
The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's is only one of many lawsuits that end up in the person getting a big paycheck for something that the company had no control over. Many instances are of people purposefully falling
I disagree with this decision because Christopher suffered second-degree burns which is more than enough evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee, and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects, and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would have
In the end McDonald's settled the lawsuit by broadcasting a simple apology, as well as donating $10 million to vegetarian and Hindu groups. The fact that McDonald's offered up an apology and some money to patch
It was discovered that there were many reports of serious burns from McDonald’s coffee and thus McDonalds was guilty of negligence and punitive damages. Leibeck went to court to get her medical expenses covered and to get McDonalds to lower their coffee to a reasonable temperature and although in addition to medical compensation she was awarded 2.8 million it was reduced to $640000 by the trial judge. The common misconception of what Leibeck was after and what she was awarded gave those supporting tort reform, which is largely organizations like the chamber of commerce acting in the interests of large corporations, a new way to convince people of the benefits of tort reform and caps on damages. In addition to spending copious amounts of money and time on tort reform, large businesses are using other forms of legal restriction such as mandatory arbitration clauses. These are fine print contracts, which most people agree to without reading when buying products, designed to force the consumer to give up rights to fight negligence and tort cases in a civil court, which is the only area of the law where individuals can have an equal chance of
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 jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the