What Were The Material Facts Of The Case?

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.

Rule: a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

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.

Fred is liable because he was put on notice of the presence of the substance. Ginger is not liable because

The tort of negligence was established with the leading case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) . Donoghue got sick from having a drink in a café after finding a snail in the bottle. Around this time, there was no route for litigation due to no contractual association. The only contractual commitment was with Donoghue’s friend who bought the drink and the café owner. Lord Atkin quoted the Bible’s principle of

While employed at the Hershey Chocolate USA, Turners claims have been essential accommodation on defendant. In this case the looking the material facts in the light most favorable to the Turner, it is difficult to conclude the material of the law, based on the evidence that Turners directly threaten to its employees or place an “Undue hardship” on Hershey. Therefore, the question whether Turners can perform the essential function of her position with reasonable accommodation is an open material fact for trial. Hershey will have a opportunities at trial to defeat Turners claim by presenting that her proposed accommodation would make vulnerable the health safety of its employees therefore an employer is not requires to accommodate an employee. Moreover, According to Buskirk, 307 F.3d at 168 case that it would carry out an undue hardship that even with the accommodation Turner would still be unable to perform work on lines 8 and 9. This matter should be used by a jury based upon fully developed evidence

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.

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

The plaintiff, Maureen Davis, sued Hardees restaurant under Flagstar Enterprises for finding Human Blood on her container after ordering biscuits and gravy, which was breached. This was under the act of an employee, Annetta Cohill, at Hardees, injuring or cutting herself and then having her manager wrap her cut, failure of duty to take more action of practicing reasonable care preparation and packaging of customer’s food under the wantonness claim.

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

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 point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B .

Before unilateral contracts come into place, contract law is about a promise for a promise. Cases such as Carlill v Carbonic Smoke Ball Co. have shown how the contract law has adapted to accommodate this form of contract. Judges seek to identify consideration and acceptance in unilateral contracts whilst managing to achieve a balance between protecting reasonable expectation of an honest man and retaining respect for the sanctity of contract.