What Caused The Coffee To Spill On Stella Liebeck

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.

The “McEthics” case describes how Mc Donald’s, the fast food industry’s market leader, faces charges concerning growing health problems in Europe and Asia.

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.

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

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.

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

Calvin should not win the lawsuit this was a worst an honest mistake. From the moment Cavin entered the store Sara could tell he was out of place. With the way he dressed it was obvious that he couldn’t afford the clothes in the department store. Sara continued to watch him until Calvin took an expensive pair of jeans into the dressing room. Being the only sales person around, she was concerned that if she did not detain him until a security guard was present that if Calvin put on the jeans and left the store then she would not be able to stop him. The detention was completely justified under the circumstances to avoid a potential catastrophe where Sara could have been injured. Also, just because Calvin had money on him, does not mean he wasn’t

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.

Stella Liebeck’s Case [The McDonald's Coffee Case and The Hot Coffee Lawsuit] Name of Student:…………………………………….. University of the People 04/21/2017 I discovered there is a lot of publicity about the McDonald scalding coffee case, but to be honest this is my first time I’m hearing about the case. So, here comes the story… Stella Liebeck, a resident of Albuquerque in New Mexico, went to McDonald with his grandson and was sitting in the passenger’s seat when they branched at one of McDonald’s restaurant to purchase a coffee in February 1992. Stella was 79 years old at the time; she ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup from the drive-through window of a local McDonald. McDonald’ coffee was known to be dangerously hot, that is, it is capable of causing third - degree burns, even through clothes in three seconds.

The short films name and root meaning Hot Coffee spurs from an accidental coffee spillage that left an elderly woman so scaulded that she never completely recovered. The major multimillion dollar fast food chain Mcdonald's was said to be eighty-percent responsible for handing the elderly woman a cup of coffee that had a lid that was too flimsy and loose and that contained water that was to hot for human consumption or even prolonged skin contact. Throughout the first segment titled The public relations campaign a brief description of Stella Liebeck’s life before the accident is presented along with an accurate description of where and how the infamous incident took place. My initial reaction after seeing the amount that Stella was awarded was

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).

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.

On Friday, September 9th, a local seattle restaurant named Matador was shut down for causing an outbreak of E coli. The outbreak caused five people to get sick, one of which developed hemolytic uremic syndrome. Four of the five people were sickened on August 14th, while another was on August 22nd. The illnesses were reported a few days later which launched an official investigation by health inspectors. They determined the cause was faulty equipment or cross contamination. The restaurant had already been cited 10 times, 6 of which involved improper refrigeration temperatures. This outbreak was the final straw and public health ordered the suspension of the owner’s permit.

She knew what hot coffee was, she chose to purchase the coffee, she decided to open the cup on her lap, and she spilled the coffee, causing the burns. So many decisions that led to the burn, all from Stella’s actions. Any implied contracts with McDonalds would have been, was there coffee in the cup, and was it hot? Since that is the implicit contract, Stella wanted and bought hot coffee, I cannot see how the provider was to blame for delivering the requested