Mcdonald's Misunderstood Case

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

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.

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).

In Albuquerque, NM, Stella Libeck, a 79 year-old woman, a passenger accidentally spilled scalding hot coffee in her lap, which was purchased through the McDonald’s drive-thru. The incident caused third-degree burns around her pelvic area. She was in the hospital for eight days and was required to receive medical treatment for two years. With the required medical treatments, her medical expenses began to accumulate and her funds began to dwindle. Liebeck requested McDonald’s to

The plaintiff wants to sue the restaurant for the damages caused by the hot coffee. New York precedent on the issue of scalding coffee that caused first and second degree burns provides that the fact that the coffee was hot enough to cause injury if not properly handled does not mean that it was defective or negligently served. The court believes that hotness of the coffee is an essential attribute of the product. The defendant does not need to warn the plaintiff unless the coffee’s temperature exceeds what it’s supposed to be in the industry standard. In this case, the evidence shows that the coffee temperate was within industry standard, the coffee is served hot is a well known fact and that there’s evidence that the temperate range recommended by the coffee industry for

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 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

This case did not come to a surprise to me at all. I deal with these kinds of situations at work once in a while. I due believe that Ms. Tom does have a valid case against the Kresge store. I would say these types of cases are usually settled when it comes to corporations that have many chains. They almost never want these lawsuits to become public and will likely settle the matter. The store should also have an insurance company that would cover the expenses. The store is liable for any incidents that happen on their property. To prevent this from happening in the future the store should have team members that walk around the store and identify hazardous situations and use the proper equipment to flag customers and warn them. At my work anytime something spills the department will page the manager on duty and the situation is resolved quickly. We use caution triangles to notify customers and employees there is a possible safety hazard, we also have an employee stand by the hazard and caution customers as they walk

Next, Mr. Morgan "then filed a formal complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in New Mexico alleging that the coffee was defective because it was excessively, dangerously hot, and because adequate warnings were not provided regarding the risks of the coffee at that temperature" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 348). It is essential to recognize that "the claim was based on products liability law, specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code, alleging breach of warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). "The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages (on the grounds that McDonald's exhibited reckless indifference in selling the coffee)" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Once Mr. Morgan set the date for the trial, he attempted to settle with McDonald's for $300,000, but the company refused the offer (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Shortly before the trial, the judge ordered that mediation be used in an attempt to resolve the case. "The mediator recommended a settlement of $225,000, McDonald's refused, and the case went to trial" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p.

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

2One of the most concern for people have is about food and some times food plays in a bad way for them. For example; Mc Donald’s had a law suit for two teenagers that they gained 270 pound and 170 pound. In this case Ms. Bradley,19 years old, 5-foot-6 and 270 pounds, and Ms. Pelman, 14, is 4-foot-10 and weight 170. they have eaten super size of combo, Mc Muffin, Big Mac, and apple pie. The both teenagers are suing this fast food restaurant for damages related to their obesity. Even this unusual case has been suited a judge of court in Manhattan had hear the cases and then he had dismissed the cases presented by lawyer for this restaurant. Because the judge has not ruled about this case and this cases stills reach trial. The companies are concerning

Your Honor. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. We are here to today to finally decide the outcome of this case between Mr.Brown and the fast food chain Mcdonald's. Mr.Brown was having a nice quiet day, when he decided to go to Mcdonald’s. During that time, Mr. Brown suffered physically and emotionally due to the irresponsibility of Mcdonald’s. As a result of the plastic molded chair’s inability to hold Mr. Brown, he injured his hand and suffered massive humiliation. The only reason that this happened was due to Mcdonald’s incompetence. The manufacturer who makes these chairs says that the average load that the chair could bear is 330 pounds. The company also states that the chairs have a standard deviation of 8 pounds. The standard deviation

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.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

In addition, McDonald’s has been facing a series of lawsuits and defamations. An example of such