Surname1

Name

Institution

Course

Date

Political Science

I believe that a hot beverage purchased from a restaurant could quickly cause third-

degree burns, and I agree with the case of Liebeck. Meanwhile, here is a brief history of

Liebeck and how an incident occurred in her life that resulted in bodily injury and how she

was able to sue for damages in court., McDonald is required to pay since he caused the

accident. Liebeck v. McDonald's, often referred as that of the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit, is

a 1994 workers compensation case.

There must've been malpractice political differences in the U. S. when a tribunal

penalized them.

Stella Liebeck $2.9 million until she was severely injured by the coffee she purchased from 

McDonald's. Stella Liebeck, 79, was ordering a McDonald's coffee while travelling in the sea

t of the car of her grandpa's automobile. The car was parked so Liebeck's grandma could prep

are her coffee with milk and sugar. By putting the lid of the coffee cup beneath her knees and 

dragging the far side of the top toward her, she was capable of removing it.

Ms. Liebeck, I believe, was to blame for her injury. If she was a frequent coffee

drinker, she should be aware that coffee is hot whether made at home or purchased through a

drive-through. Every cup of coffee I've ever had was initially too hot to drink. We all know

that taking a sip right away will burn our lips. She should have been more careful with her
 Surname2

coffee as she sipped it through her window. Yes, it changed my mind since McDonald's was

tried and convicted and was blamed for 80 percent of the coffee leak. Liebeck was deemed to

be 20percent to blame for the tragedy's incidence. Regardless of the fact that perhaps the

coffee cup contained a disclaimer, the jury determined that this was not visible or adequate.

Liebeck were awarded $200,000 in unjust enrichment, which were later lowered to $160,000,

plus $2.7 hundred thousand in monetary damages, which were subsequently cut to $480,000.

McDonald's as well as Liebeck subsequently appealed the ruling, and the two parties settled

for an undisclosed figure just under $600,000.

McDonald's, in my opinion, has responsibility for failing to inform its consumers that

their coffee is scalding. Coffee should never reach 190 degrees Fahrenheit, and it should

never be served to customers at that temperature. As per Susan Saladoff, author of the

McDonald's Coffee Case FAQ, third-degree burns do not cure without tens of millions of

dollars in epidermal grafting, exfoliation, and whirlpool therapy. These therapies result in

lasting disfigurement, excruciating agony, and months of immobility if not years. As a result,

I agree with the amount of money she was given and believe $160,000 was

reasonable(Rutherford, Denney pp72-75).

Mrs. Leibeck was seriously hurt and spent many days in the hospital. In addition, the

doctor informed her that she would be incapacitated for two years while she recovered. The

McDonald's corporation has been aware of this risk for many years but has done little to

address the issue of hot coffee. That is why, rather than committing a lot smaller quantity to

find a solution to this, they are instead paying a large sum of money.

McDonald's was liable, according to Ms. Liebeck's lawyers, because the company is

responsible for the company and had the full responsibility of ensuring that it was safe for

consumption in this case, as well as adequately informing the client about the good or service
 Surname3

and what could go mistaken entirely if the customer did not follow their instructions.

McDonald's did not notify the customer and did not take the essential precautions to ensure

the client's safety. Ms. Stella Liebeck anticipated that the product would be heated, but not to

the point of being unbearable.

Furthermore, I discovered that the automobile lacked a cup holder, which she slid

between her knees and spilled in her lap while preparing coffee. My investigation led me to

conclude that neither the plaintiff nor McDonald's are entirely to blame for the accident.

McDonald's was negligent in refusing to recognize the truth that their hot coffee was the

cause of the disaster. They continued to decline to lower the temperature after the incident,

and it quickly went around the world. It appears that they are unconcerned with the health

and safety of their customers. I discovered that it was also her responsibility; she should have

lowered the temperature first and made coffee so that she wouldn't have an accident. This is

why the jury decided against awarding her punitive damages.

 Surname4

Work cited

Cain, Kevin G. "The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit." Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law

11.1 (2007).

Rutherford, Denney G. "Lessons from Liebeck: QSRs cool the coffee." Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly 39.3 (1998): 72-75.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAzMMKIspPQ