Case Study : Flagstar Enterprises, Inc. V. Maureen Davis

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

I believe that George and Mary do have a valid case to file against the Don's fast food restaurant.  There is a reason that Don’s restaurant is providing burgers and food for the high schools locality which has been contracted with the school authorities. From the results of the health department’s survey showing that the food from Don’s is causing the children to develop high cholesterol and obesity, with George and Mary’s son being one of those children. There are many legal arguments which can help in the favor of the plaintiff’s case.

The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,

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

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

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.

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

Lochner filed the case against New York. New York stated that cooking at a bakery causes all of health issues, and that the law was protecting his health. The Court ruled 5-4, because they found it did restrict the owners individual business, and they didn’t have a reliable reason to pass the law. People believed that the State of New York didn’t make the law for health and safety; it was a labor law.

This case is by no means easy to judge or come to a conclusion. A large portion of the award was due to pain and suffering. It is a bit difficult to fully understand the high payout and how the amount was deemed appropriate. It is very difficult to assess a sum for spilled coffee. The jury really considered the time it took to recover and not to mention her treatment expenses. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Liebeck wanted to initially settle out of court for 20,000 dollars, which McDonalds refused. Refusing to settle out of court opened the doors to litigation and ultimately cost McDonalds in this case.

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.

In the case sub judice, we are called upon to adopt one of two polarized positions by holding either that this is one of the infrequent instances where a trial court has abused the discretion vested in it, or, alternatively, we are asked to endorse the equally exceptional position that this is the first “unusual and compelling circumstance” since the Court of Appeals adopted this articulation of the rule in 1975. A. S. Abell Co., 274 Md. at 721. After weighing the considerations that are woven through our authorities on this subject; namely, judicial economy, comity, and control of the litigation; we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Volkman’s motion for summary judgment.

Grange claimed the “contributory negligence” to eliminate their liability by saying the Councils did not reasonably implement the contractual and tortious duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. However, that argument was rejected by the court. In relation to this, Rare J found: