Hot Coffee Case Study Answers

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.

For example, a consumer has the right to expect a product which is safe to use in the manner instructed by the manufacturer. In turn, that manufacturer has a responsibility to create a product which is safe if used in the manner specified. If any dangers are present, they need to be displayed on the product or its packaging. As a consumer, if I already know what I’m getting myself into, then whatever the result in the end is was from my own doing, it was my decision to make and no one else’s, and I have no

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

Indubitably, the company wronged the consumers and passengers by violating their rights to not be killed in a car fire and their right to minimal health

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.

The court didn’t approve summary judgment for product liability claims because the Nadel’s failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at 175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second-degree burns. The articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have no value as evidence.

FACTS: Our client, Sam Kant, was arrested for shoplifting at Bilmart, a national department store. At his wife’s request, Mr. Kant went to Bilmart on Wednesday, October 20, 2008, and purchased a case of six 4 oz. cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon. Upon returning home, his wife chastised him for once again failing to purchase what she had requested. Apparently, Mrs. Kant can’t stand the taste of Hoover’s Beans, but is very fond of the Handell’s brand, and was planning to serve them to her book club when she hosted them for lunch the following afternoon. Mrs. Kant ordered her husband to return to Bilmart to exchange the Hoover’s beans for Handell’s beans.

Next, Mr. Morgan "then filed a formal complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in New Mexico alleging that the coffee was defective because it was excessively, dangerously hot, and because adequate warnings were not provided regarding the risks of the coffee at that temperature" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 348). It is essential to recognize that "the claim was based on products liability law, specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code, alleging breach of warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). "The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages (on the grounds that McDonald's exhibited reckless indifference in selling the coffee)" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Once Mr. Morgan set the date for the trial, he attempted to settle with McDonald's for $300,000, but the company refused the offer (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Shortly before the trial, the judge ordered that mediation be used in an attempt to resolve the case. "The mediator recommended a settlement of $225,000, McDonald's refused, and the case went to trial" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p.

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.

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (GMCR) was founded in 1981 as a small café and combined with Keurig in 2006 (About GMCR, 2004-2009). GMCR produces specialty coffee and coffee makers; Keurig is the maker of a single cup coffee maker as well as specialty teas and coffees. Keurig was founded in 1998 on the concept that one should be able to make coffee one cup at a time rather than one pot at a time (Coffee.org, unknown). Today, GMCR has acquired and merged with several specialty coffee brewers and Keurig

The rule that courts will imply a term that was overlooked when the contract was being made, as it was so obvious

Imaging if there was no more coffee in this world, how would you feel? Nowadays, coffee becomes an important part of people’s life. People who often work overtime, they drink coffee because caffeine can make you awake; people who have to wake up early in the morning, they drink coffee because instead of making breakfast, coffee is more convenient; people drink coffee during the free time, because it also tastes good.

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