Case Study: Hot Coffee

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.

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

(8) She wasn’t willing to risk even her clothes for a dying man. Giving others the benefit of doubt, she supposes “some people might not have thought it was life-threatening.” (8) She also assumes “some people might have been squeamish.” (8)

All of the case studies are concerned with the Law of Contract, specifically the formation of a contract and the differences between an invitation to treat and a contract. We will investigate each consumers’s specific contract or lack thereof individually and advise Bruce on his legal position.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

Through the discovery and length of the case it was discovered that the company had a large number of complains with their coffee. It was also discovered that the coffee was made to be from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which can cause third degree burns in a few seconds. When it came to allocations, 80% of the blame was placed on McDonals and the remaining was placed on Stella; this

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

However, Lambert’s Café is first and foremost a restaurant. In Coomer, the Court examined a case where a patron at a baseball game sustained injury after being hit in the eye with a hotdog thrown into the audience by a baseball team’s mascot (Id. at 188). The Court asserted, based on findings in Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo. Banc 1982) that “if a person voluntarily consents to accept the danger of a known and appreciated risk, that person may not sure another for failing to protect him from it” (Id. at 189). They then asserted that if that is the case, the plaintiff would not be owed any duty of care by defendant (Id. at 192). However, they found that having a hotdog thrown at one’s person during a baseball event does not constitute an “inherent risk,” since it is not a common practice during the performance of an average baseball game (Id. at 202). The Court concluded that the team “…[owed] the fans a duty to use reasonable care in conducting the Hotdog Launch and can be held liable for damages…”(Id. at 203).

No reason appears why the instructor would have made such a statement unless it were true during the cooking class. Therefore, the statement is admissible under FRE 804(b)(3) to prove that Song was not negligent in her actions. In this case, Song only lit the grill and walked away because she recalled the Kensington cooking class instructor stating that she could lit the grill, let it get hot and leave the lid open to prep the food for as long as it took to get the food ready. Therefore, the statement is admissible under FRE 804(a)(4) for the purposes of this

I disagree with this decision because Christopher suffered second-degree burns which is more than enough evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee, and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects, and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would have

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

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.

Coffee drinkers all have one thing in common; they want their coffee made to their specification. Most soft drinks, milkshakes, and draft beer are ready made. Coffee has many flavors and that can be an operational nightmare. Starbucks has 10 different types of coffee beans, 12 blends of flavors and loads of special toppings.

First of all, Coffee-Mate´s main benefit is its ability to replace cream or real milk. Furthermore, it can be stored for a much longer time than milk or cream making it a good substitute. People who cannot drink coffee without milk don’t need to carry around or look for milk since coffee mate will do the same job. In addition it is made of health promoting ingredients such as dried glucose and vegetable fat. However it cannot be legally defined as non-diary since it also contains milk derivatives. This can be considered a benefit to Coffee-Mate when it comes to customers who like the flavour and thus also makes them use less sugar for sure. Another