It was confirmed that the coffee was stored at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, per industry standards Howard, 1994, p. The facts in the Liebeck case start with the incident description as recounted by Aric Press in the March 20, 1995 issue of Newsweek. By doing this, one can begin to see how such large awards and settlements can arise out of such mundane conduct-how such extraordinary liability can emerge out of a drive-through. Discuss the legal theories used by the plaintiff to recover in this lawsuit, how the lawsuit was resolved, and why you agree with the decision in the case During the trial the jury made a decision in Mrs. In this case, coffee purchased is presumed to be non-injurious by a reasonable person.
Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. The cotton sweat pants that Liebeck was wearing could indicate that she was in. Many saw this as a signal that tort reform was in dire need. If we feel that the coffee is too hot, we can always choose not to buy it rather than buying it and hurting ourselves with it. At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Since she was wearing cotton pants, the coffee caused her third-degree burns to her thighs and her butt. Chris drives to McDonald's to purchase a cup of coffee which was served in a Styrofoam cup Letric Law, 2011.
The number settled on was equivalent roughly to two days worth of coffee sales companywide Gerlin, 1994, p. Retrieved from the Lectric Law Library's Stacks Stella Liebeck, who sued fast-food giant McDonald's for compensation, owing to several third-degree, and some second-degree, burns, sustained by her from a cup of scalding McDonald's coffee; and 2 Roy L. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Ultimately, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.
His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. Liebeck, and while the judge can limit that amount, he or she cannot entirely remove that great sums doled out by juries. There were innumerable articles about the vastness of the award and most, including a column from the New York Daily news, Mighty Quinn 1994 , were aghast at such an award for something so seemingly innocuous. Past results are not a guarantee of results in a future case, and the outcome of your case or matter cannot be predicated based upon a lawyer's or our law firm's past results. The entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap, burning her severely. Pay nothing out of your pocket.
However, Liebeck is, at its essence, a product liability case. In addition to above, both the contributory and the comparative negligence applied to this McDonald's hot coffee case. But, is it supposed to be hot enough to cause third degree burns? After, Liebeck was taken to the hospital for a medical checkup which confirmed that she had suffered full thickness third-degree burns on 6% of her skin and over 16% of lesser burns. The major focus of this paper will be to critically analyze the McDonald coffee case on the stated facts, issues, applicable laws, and decisions made by the judge and. Also, what responsibility does the consumer have in ensuring they understand this and take appropriate cautionary measures to avoid causing injury to themselves? Liebeck was wearing sweatpants which absorbed the coffee and held the hot liquid against her skin. The supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.
Restaurants and the court in which the lawsuit was filed was The Second Judicial District Court in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. This case deals with product liability law. Take Rhyne vs Kmart Corp for instance. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. Also, under the doctrine of comparative negligence, the plaintiff may recover the proportion of his or her loss attributed to the defendant's negligence. It has around more than 30,000 restaurants in 121 countries. Thus, instances like these would do not happen.
But the facts of the case tell a very different story. Also, as in any case, there exists the possibility of a runaway jury. Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180—190 °F 82—88 °C , McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Liebeck by the 20% of her fault. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, her thighs, buttocks, and groin. To this day, that New Mexico state court case is an essential component of any tort reform debate or discussion of litigation lore. The media portrayal was very distorted and only focused on the elements of the award and incident, but not the sum of the facts. The central issue was whether hot coffee, which by its very nature is hot, is an unreasonably dangerous and defective product because of its temperature. Her sweatpants immediately absorbed all of the coffee, holding the hot liquid against her skin and resulting in scalds over her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Hot Coffee documentary On June 27, 2011, premiered a documentary about problems titled Hot Coffee. Liebeck might have just suffered a first degree burn, without much damage to her skin.