The Matter And Procedure At 3 Pemberton Square

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.

Jurisdiction played a key role in the outcome of the lawsuit in A Civil Action. The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, filed the original complaint against W. R. Grace and Beatrice Foods in state court. Schlichtmann, a personal injury attorney, spends most of his time there; personal injury is heard much less frequently in federal court. William Cheeseman, the attorney for W. R. Grace, almost immediately removes the case to federal court since W. R. Grace’s headquarters is in New York and the amount in question is clearly over

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.

The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,

I believe that George and Mary do have a valid case to file against the Don's fast food restaurant.  There is a reason that Don’s restaurant is providing burgers and food for the high schools locality which has been contracted with the school authorities. From the results of the health department’s survey showing that the food from Don’s is causing the children to develop high cholesterol and obesity, with George and Mary’s son being one of those children. There are many legal arguments which can help in the favor of the plaintiff’s case.

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).

Two more people have filed federal lawsuits against Chipotle after they said they were infected with E. coli in an outbreak linked to the popular Mexican chain in the Pacific Northwest. The Seattle attorney representing Jessica Ellis of Mount Vernon, Washington, and Chris Collins of Lake Oswego, Oregon, is asking the federal court in Portland to hold Chipotle liable for their illness. There are at least 41 people on the list of cases spanning two states 28 in western Washington and 13 in Oregon’s Portland area. The latest case was confirmed in Oregon.

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

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.

The authority supporting this view can be derived for the case of Hobbs v Winchester Corporation [1910] where the butcher was guilty because the meat he tried to sell was unfit for human consumptions.

In the evening of September 20, 2003 four friends chose to eat at Chili’s Grill and Bar and at the end of their meal they received their bill of $56 dollars and made a decision to walk out without paying their tab. A regular at the restaurant noticed this decision and chose to walk out of the restaurant and follow the four friends with his white unmarked vehicle. Once the friends noticed they had someone following behind them they stopped into a Best Buy parking lot where they were then confronted by the gentleman. The gentleman proceeded to tell the friends that he noticed what happened and they would not get away with their action. The friends drove off and soon after a high-speed pursuit emerged and ended with the friends wrecking their vehicle. In a short amount of time after the incident occurred the friends decided to sue Chili’s Grill and Bar for damages that occurred from the pursuit from the unmarked gentleman.

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.

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.

The first court that I attend was district court, the judge was Fernando r. macias