Mcdonald's Extremely Hot Coffee

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 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.

Procedural issue: A jury ultimately found that Philip Morris was negligent and that Philip Morris had engaged deceit. It awarded compensatory damages of

No one remembers serving the plaintiff on the morning of the alleged incident. The Ishpeming Restaurant has two creamer machines. It appears that the cream dispenser, which is described as a model skmcd1p Silver King Refrigeration Unit was the cream dispenser, which was utilized on the date of the incident. The alleged incident occurred at approximately 7:30 am on April 28, 2014. The plaintiff allegedly ordered a cup of coffee with cream at the

(Cheeseman2013) In the Massey v Starbucks case Kenya Massey and her boyfriend visited a Starbucks the two orders drinks after paying for the drinks the two took a seat in the waiting area of the store waiting for their drinks to be prepared. That when the manager the shift manager Karen Morales came out a stated they could not sit down because the store was closing. Massey, who had still not received her drinks, informed Morales that she had paid for her dinks, and that she and her boyfriend intended to sit and enjoy them in Starbucks. Morales instructed Starbucks the employee Melissa Polanco to cancel Massey's beverage order and refund Massey's money.

This case is by no means easy to judge or come to a conclusion. A large portion of the award was due to pain and suffering. It is a bit difficult to fully understand the high payout and how the amount was deemed appropriate. It is very difficult to assess a sum for spilled coffee. The jury really considered the time it took to recover and not to mention her treatment expenses. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Liebeck wanted to initially settle out of court for 20,000 dollars, which McDonalds refused. Refusing to settle out of court opened the doors to litigation and ultimately cost McDonalds in this case.

The tort law uses the justice system as a vehicle to empower tort victims. Based on the video episodes of “Hot Coffee” the justice system is used effectively to promote law suits. The tort law is geared towards ensuring quality and safety, and awarding for damages that occurred in civil negligence towards the individual. The tort law is aimed to draw the attention of an organization, for example, in the McDonald’s case; McDonalds showed negligence when they served the customer hot coffee; the tort law in this situation is used to compensate for punitive damages and used as a coaching method for McDonalds to guarantee accidents such as this

In 1992 there was a case between a patron, Stella Liebeck, and McDonald’s Corporation (Brusseau, 2012). The case involved a hot cup of coffee that Stella opened, by gripping the cup in between her legs, and resulted in the hot coffee spilling and severely burning her. Fast forward to the end of the case, and we see McDonald’s Corporation held liable for the damages and forced to pay Stella Liebeck. During that time, the media had many opinions on who was right or wrong in the case. Many echoed an opinion that the hot coffee should have been an obvious indicator that the contents could cause harm. After all, when one is young they learn the difference between hot and cold and the dangers that come with each. It seems the notion of caveat emptor would fit the situation well.

Liebeck was awarded 2.9 million dollars for a simple .49 cent coffee ("Public Citizen Access to Justice, Financial Reform and Government Accountability", n.d.) Sadly, this may have been avoided and many other injuries as well, if McDonald’s ethically conducted themselves. Was the total amount awarded to Ms. Liebeck sufficient? I believe that she was entitled to a settlement to cover her pain and suffering and medical bills. However, not to this large of a sum that was later reduced by another judge. I speak only for myself as other causes may have been present such as her grandsons negligence of possibly speeding off or other related things. But this of course is not defending McDonald’s unethical practices of serving coffee that hot. Furthermore, McDonald’s was unable to validate their practices of serving coffee this

Liebeck vs. McDonald’s was a known case in the early 90’s because to most it was a frivolous case and an easy way for one to get rich. The case involved a 79 year old woman who happened to have spilled hot coffee onto her lap purchased from McDonald’s and then suffered severe third degree burns. The woman was then presented with millions of monies covering the damages she incurred.

I agree that the McDonald incident of hot coffee wasn't a scam. There was proof that the coffee was so hot that it could cause a third degree burn on a person, and so this happened to that lady who suffer from a burn. All she was looking for was compensation to help her paid her medical bills, but some people mocked her for her clumsiness, when in fact she wasn't at fault. This gave McDonald a hint to lower their coffee temperature, and to be mindful of their products' conditions.

I would agree with the jury on this case verses the judge. When the judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 it says in the book that it only was equivalent to "two days worth of coffee sales"(shaw 232) I feel like it was not enough. The jury wanted to send a message and I agree that a lot times businesses in general over look the risks of their products and it causes unnecessary pain to consumers. To me two days worth of coffee sales doesn't seem like a weak punishment considering if you do the math McDonald's does over $85 million in coffee sales alone a year (based on the figures from the case).

The Macdonald coffee scolding case exemplifies the need for companies to pay attention to quality control policies within their respective companies, as well as pay attention to their customer’s opinion. While taking into consideration that accidents happens when you least expect, I am inclined to say that customer should bear some of the blame (very little of the blame).Macdonald on the other hand, based on the handing of their customers complaints regarding their injuries while consuming product or while in the process of consuming their products makes it difficult to not to hold the company liable for the damages suffered by the client. In addition, it seems MacDonald actions were unethical because they were sure the customer, like some

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.

The lawsuit is meant to discern liability regarding the "quality issues" Starbucks referenced. MFB claimed some of their products may have been contaminated by a gas leak at one of Starbucks facilitates, while Starbucks faults MFB for unsatisfactory