Using the Internet or other sources, research the actual facts of Stella Liebeck

Question

Using the Internet or other sources, research the actual facts of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s and then discuss:

Based upon your research, explain whether you would have found the plaintiff proved all, some, or none of the elements for negligence.

Discuss whether you think McDonald’s assumption of risk defense should have been applied in this case.

Make a list of your research sources and save as a document (last name.sources). Do not post sources in your discussion.

I have students provide their sources as one way to help insure that everyone does his/her own research. I do recommend, however, that if you use the Internet for your research, you should, at a minimum, compare information from at least 3 Internet sources. Also note that the best discussion postings are usually from those students who have read information from multiple sources and apply the legal concepts in their own writing style (not just reiterating the article you read).

Explanation / Answer

In the case of Liebeck v McDonald’s after researching the facts of this case I would have most certainly ruled in favor of Mrs. Liebeck for her original suit amount of $125,000. This is a case of sheer disregard for customer safety. McDonalds had received hundreds of complaints of burns caused by hot coffee but yet did nothing to protect their consumers from harm. According to the Consumers Attorneys of California, there were at least 700 complaints brought to McDonald’s attention from complaints and suits. Still the restaurant giant failed to change its policy of keeping the temperature of its coffee at between 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. During the discovery and trial Christopher Appleton who was the McDonald’s Manager of Quality Assurance admitted that he was aware of the risk of hot coffee and had had no plans on reducing the temperature. Mr. Appleton also reported that the number of people burned in relation to the number of cups of coffee that McDonald’s sold was not substantial enough to modify the policy of the temperature the coffee had been held at (Dedman & Farr, 2011). With the testimony from both sides, and the facts presented the jury did make the correct decision in awarding the plaintiff damages both compensatory and punitive. In this case, Mrs. Liebeck’s original suit claimed COMPENSATORY DAMAGES in the amount of $125,000. This is broken down to $10,500 past medical expenses, $2,500 future medical expenses, $5,000 lost wages, $100,000 pain and suffering from disfigurement and permanent scarring to her body. Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover medical expenses and lost wages but McDonalds never offered more than $800 so the case went to trial. As our text states PUNITIVE DAMAGES are intended to punish the defendant for conduct that is extreme and outrageous. In this case the blatant disregard for consumer safety is extreme and outrageous. The award of punitive damages to the plaintiff of $2.7 million dollars did send a message to the defendant. The judge reduced both the compensatory and punitive damages. The ECONOMIC DAMAGES awarded were reduced from $200,000 compensatory damages to $160,000 due to finding of comparative fault. Punitive damages were reduced from $2.7 million to $480,000. The judge commented that the new amount was justified due to “willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous” conduct on the part of McDonalds (Dedman & Farr, 2011). I do believe the judge’s ruling on the amounts was reasonable. I do however it sent a strong message as punitive damages do, to the defendant. As a result McDonalds did start putting warning labels on their cups of coffee and also reduced the temperature it kept its coffee set at. There is no finality to this case as Mrs. Liebeck and McDonalds settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Reference:-

Consumer Attorneys of California. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2014, from .caoc.?pg=facts

Dedman, J., & Farr, N. (2011, January 25). The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ | Abnormal Use. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from hp://abnormaluse.m/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hot-coffee.hl

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2014, from h://w.lectlaw.c/files/cur78.m

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse U
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.