What Caused The Coffee To Spill On Stella Liebeck

“Java Jive: Genealogy of a Juridical Icon” Reading Questions 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.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

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

Homework Assignment I: “Hot Coffee” 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 case study “Hot Coffee” is the story of an elderly woman who inadvertently spilled coffee on her legs, causing severe burns and thousands of dollars in medical bills. This is an attempt to justify where the blame may lay, utilizing the doctrine caveat emptor, with consideration of her age, assumptions will be made about who is ultimately responsible for the spilled coffee, and consumerism in general.

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.

Ms. Liebeck hired attorney, Reed Morgan, to help her with the situation. It is important to understand legal warranties and product liability to fully grasp the legal mechanics of the Liebeck v. McDonald's case. "Products liability refers to the liability incurred by a seller of goods when the goods, because

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.

The details in the McDonald's v. Stella Liebeck case are very similar to the details of the case in Class Action. However, the legal knowledge surrounding the cases were different. For example, in Class Action the company Argo knowingly put out a defective car because it was more financially convenient to pay for settlements than it would have been to recall every single vehicle and fix them. Similarly, McDonald's was aware that their coffee was held at very hot temperature standards that were extremely dangerous to their unknowing customers. McDonald’s argued on the basis that consumers preferred hot coffee so it was good for profit (Haltom, McCann 2004). A McDonald's safety consultant testified that they received 700 complaints of burns

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

This is just one lawsuit out of a few that the coffee giant is being accused of. Others include cold drinks and the amount of ice to coffee ratio.

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

Business Ethics Minor Financial Markets Case 1 McEthics in Europe and Asia: should McDonald’s extend its response to ethical criticism in Europe? Introduction 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.

Liebeck vs. Caveat Emptor A.Villasmil University of the People PHIL1404 AY2018-T4 Professor: Cecil Blount Liebeck vs. Caveat Emptor 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.

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.