Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants It is not uncommon to turn on the local news or open the morning paper to the picture of someone who has fallen on a wet floor in a grocery store or has been hit by a slow moving car. Often times, though not always, the potential plaintiff in this scenario is looking to earn an easy paycheck by dragging an otherwise innocent individual or company through tort. The often extensive process that ensues from frivolous law firms can give rise to much debate in

The Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurants case was one of the biggest tort reform cases. A tort is a term used for a personal injury, which allows the injured party to receive compensation for injuries and damages. The American legal system allows anyone in accordance to the law taking the proper steps to sue a person or corporation that may be responsible for his or her injuries. This case is still one that people argue today about whether this was negligence on behalf of the plaintiff, while some

Introduction 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. Facts Liebeck was riding as a passenger in her grandson’s

In February 22, 1992 a man by the name of Chris pulls his 1989 Ford Probe into the drive-thru of an Albuquerque, New Mexico McDonalds. Chris ordered a coffee for his grandmother, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck. Upon receiving the coffee Chris pulls into a parking space so Stella can introduce cream and sugar to her coffee. A 1989 Ford Probe lacks cupholders and features a slanted dashboard. Thus, Stella placed the coffee near her lap and opened the Styrofoam lid. At that moment, 180-degree liquid saturated

(Bagley & Savage, 2010, pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort, the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases, Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonalds, have been a pinnacle “poster child” for tort reform in the United States. In 2002, frivolous lawsuits cost taxpayers over $233 billion (Insideprison.com, 2006). What is considered a frivolous lawsuit? It is when an attorney

three interviews conducted that two out of three people don’t necessarily understand the full concept of tort reform or have absolutely no idea what it is. One of the most notorious cases that led to the ongoing debate of tort reform is Liebeck v. Mcdonald’s Restaurant. When the case is brought up, one will say, “Isn’t that the lady that burned herself with coffee and then tried to sue for millions of dollars?” People believe they know the details of the case, however one will be able to see, this particular

Noneconomic Damages Reform There has been over three decades of debate over a reform that affects everything from insurance and health care premiums to the prices of goods and services. The Tort law gives civilians the right to put liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different things if something goes wrong. A main issue of the tort reform is noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awards granted for “pain and suffering.” A solution to this ongoing problem is to set a cap, or

Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that frivolous lawsuits are out of control in America Introduction: A. Attention Getter 1. We've all heard the story about the woman who spilled scalding hot coffee on herself and then successfully sued McDonald's. But we've also heard reports of burglars suing homeowners after injuring themselves during a robbery. Most of us laugh off these stories as urban legends made to show the ridiculousness of frivolous lawsuits, but you might be surprised, however

Hot Coffee Documentary JORGE A. CENICEROS National University LAW 304 CHRISTOPHER J. REEBER, J.D., L.L.M. Hot Coffee Questions: Did you know about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case before the video? I heard about the case, and like most people, my opinion was formed with inaccurate information. The information was provided via television and radio, but there must have been information in the newspaper as well. Several radio talk shows used the case and their opinion to their benefit.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, while she ordered a coffee from McDonald’s. Liebeck’s nephew parked