Liebeck vs mcdonalds. The Stella Liebeck Case: Why McDonald’s Coffee Was Too Hot 2022-10-28
Liebeck vs mcdonalds Rating:
5,8/10
1356
reviews
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the "McDonald's coffee case," was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a popular media and cultural phenomenon. The case was brought by Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns after spilling hot coffee on herself at a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Liebeck argued that McDonald's coffee was defectively designed and too hot, causing her injuries. She sought compensation for her medical expenses, which amounted to over $10,000. McDonald's offered to settle the case for $800, but Liebeck and her attorneys countered with a settlement offer of $20,000, which McDonald's rejected.
The case eventually went to trial, and a jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were later reduced to $160,000, and the punitive damages were reduced to $480,000 on appeal. Liebeck and McDonald's eventually settled for an undisclosed amount.
The McDonald's coffee case has been frequently cited as an example of frivolous litigation and excessive damages. Critics argue that Liebeck was at fault for spilling the coffee and that the large damages award was unjustified. Supporters of Liebeck argue that McDonald's was negligent in serving coffee that was too hot and that the damages award was appropriate given the company's wealth and the severity of Liebeck's injuries.
The case has had a lasting impact on public perception of the legal system and has been referenced in discussions of tort reform. It has also been the subject of numerous articles, books, and documentaries. Regardless of one's view on the merits of the case, the McDonald's coffee case remains a notable and controversial example of product liability law in action.
Liebeck v McDonalds: How the Hot Coffee Lawsuit Led to Tort Reform
The coffee served was at a temperature that could cause second- or third-degree burns in as little as seven seconds. She stayed at the hospital for eight days, because she suffered third degree burns from scalding hot coffee, where she received skin grafting. She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. When filing a criminal case, you will have to prepare your complaint-affidavit accompanied by the affidavits of your witnesses and other evidence proving the alleged violation of a crime. Through speaking with Dr. Politely, Chris pulled into a parking space so that his grandmother could add cream and sugar to her coffee.
Archived from PDF on 23 September 2015. Here, it came back with over one million dollars in hand for Mrs. At the time of the lawsuit, Mr. According to her children, the undisclosed amount received by their mother went toward caring for her in her final years. Pearson a few days after the May 5, 2005 deadline because the pants had to be sent to their other store. Late night comedians had a field day with the jury verdict, ignoring the real reasons why the verdict was so high.
The McDonald's Coffee Case: "Liebeck v. McDonald's"
It embarked on compliance with a company-wide modernization of stores to include self-order kiosks and table service. How much do you really know? From an ordinary perspective, one can view this as an ordinary scenario in restaurants and coffee shops and among coffee drinkers, especially those who consume their coffee in moving vehicles. Retrieved October 26, 2013. Judges and lawyers typically refer to defendants who represent themselves with the terms pro se or pro per, the latter being taken from "in propria persona. Retrieved August 10, 2018. Pearson, was angered by the fact that the pants was late and refused to accept the pants from Chungs even thou 1 the pants had the same belt hoop as the one originally submitted; 2 the measurements were identical to the measurement he requested for alterations; and 3 the tags on his pants were the same as his receipts Lexis-Nexis, 2008.
Liebeck v. McDonald’s: How a Misunderstood Verdict Could Impact Your Next Case
She has been negligent in handling the cup of coffee, which a normal person would always believed to be hot and can cause injury even without actually knowing its actual temperature. Past experiences should have been enough to encourage the company to do something with their hot coffee in order to avoid future similar incidents. When facing litigation for hot beverage spills and burns, contact us to discuss your case and learn how we can strengthen your defense with expertise in science, chemistry, and best practices for preparing and serving hot beverages. Capital University Law Review. The case was considered frivolous and became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform Lexis-Nexis, 2008.
Liebeck dropped 20 pounds nearly 20% of her body weight during this time. Liebeck was also negligent. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, the museum endeavored to remove its rock n roll nostalgia. In essence, the jury said that Mrs.
Understanding the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's)
After a thorough research of these two cases, I personally think that in case-one, the lawsuit could have been prevented in two ways: firstly, if McDonald had carefully attended to the 700 previous burns complaints, it would have brewed its coffee at 140 degree Fahrenheit, and served at 130 degree Fahrenheit, in order to avoid any type of burns, such as Ms. A normal person would always take extra precaution in handling potentially harmful objects. We can fix it with solutions that will make us healthier and more economically secure. Still, the business failed to address the dangerous temperature levels of its coffee. The jury then awarded Mrs. The 1989 Ford Probe Mrs. Liebeck, and dismissive of the history of other cases.
Second, by discovering the extent to which the verdict was just or unjust by evaluating some of its key arguments. Liebeck did carry some blame for her injuries because she held the coffee improperly. This case sparked a generation of criticisms of the personal injury law system. While the issues in the dry cleaning lawsuit, Pearson v. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. According to the company, the method increased the taste of its coffee. That is to say that one must separate the great controversy this case created and focus on the underlying legal issues.
The Stella Liebeck Case: Why McDonald’s Coffee Was Too Hot
Therefore, I posit this particular argument is a shameful example of what legal discourse can become should we let it. In regards to the Pearson v. While preparing the hot coffee lawsuit Morgan spoke with expert Dr. The beverage was found to be at a temperature between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, about 70 degrees hotter than the average cup of coffee. Even though satisfying all similar occasions does not seem fair, the lack of precedents requires increasing the awareness of businesses through this means to emphasize the necessity to comply with safety considerations.
