Tort Law: Stella Liebeck Report

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 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.

No. The North Carolina Eastern District Court ruled that Dillard’s shall pay $50,000 in damages and provide her with front pay and reinstatement.

first-class seating. The Memphis court ruled in her favor and fined the company $500. Barnett

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

The Woburn case is an example of a complex tort case. A tort case involves any personal injury someone sustains due to the negligence of someone else. The plaintiff is taxed to prove three features: the defendant must have a duty of care for the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, and general causation. Without general causation, the defendant could have a duty of care and breached this duty of care, but there would not be a tort case only with the association between the defendant’s behavior and the personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

Was the amount granted to Burke and Maltbie a reasonable amount based on the damages?

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

Conclusion: Thanks to the landmark case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, there is now no misunderstanding that awards received for damages to personal and professional reputation and mental suffering are included in gross income and are therefore taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). This determines that because Murray did not suffer personal physical injuries and since gross income as defined by Code Sec. 61 includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries, such as those awarded to Murray, his award is in fact taxable [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].

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 decided that the plaintiff was entitled to both compensatory damages of $200,000, reduced by $40,000 for her own negligence, and punitive damages totaling $2.7 million (Gerlin, 1994, p.1). Gerlin (1994) goes on to state that “the jury found that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless or malicious conduct” and subsequently used that for the basis of their punitive damages (p. 2). The number settled on was equivalent roughly to two days worth of coffee sales companywide (Gerlin, 1994, p.2). The jury concluded that McDonald’s behaved callously and punished them accordingly (Coffin, 2004, p.4). The jury decided the warning on the cup was insufficient for the hazard (Press, 1995, p.33).

To being with, the comparison of the two cases. In both cases either and induvial or individuals were hurt. Stella Liebeck had “third degree burns on about six percent of her body and sixteen percent had lesser burns but had left permanent scarring” (pg. 186). According to the book Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis “third-degree burn are extreme injuries in that they penetrate through the full thickness of the sin to the fat, muscle, and bone” (pg.186) which is in no means a small injury. The same goes for the Argo case, the man that was being represented by Jeb Ward, had caught on fire and had lost his son and wife due to the defective automobile from Argo Motors. Both serious, one actually resulted in deaths.

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.