Written Assignment - 3

BUS 3305 - Business Laws and Ethics

Instructor - Linda Howe

21st February 2024

Research the case of Stella Liebeck, an elderly grandmother who received third-degree

burns when she spilled coffee purchased at a McDonald’s drive-through.

Oh, Reading the first two paragraphs made me laugh out loud. Humans naturally begin to ask

questions, so I responded with, "Isn't coffee supposed to be hot?" Furthermore, the coffee was

spilled on her by herself rather than by McDonald's! In addition, she was not paying attention

when operating the vehicle, and so on.

What was the basis of her claim against McDonald's? Was the alleged tort intentional,

negligent, or strict liability? Why did Ms. Liebeck's lawyers believe that McDonald's

was liable to Ms. Liebeck?

According to the case's description in actuality. It wasn't willful tort, nor was it ever

carelessness, because Mrs. Liebeck wasn't driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the
vehicle she was in moving. Indeed, strict responsibility applies in this instance since the

McDonald's coffee product leaked, even if spills are occasionally expected but not intended

to inflict serious skin injury. If she had spilled coffee on her face by mistake, she may have

died. She was driving in a car with another passenger who was stopped in the McDonald's

parking lot where she had purchased the coffee; the car was not moving. The company is

responsible for paying Mrs. Liebeck because she spilled the entire contents of the cup on her

lap while she was removing the lid to add cream and sugar, while she was holding the cup

between her knees.

Was the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability?

This case fell under the categories of strict liability and negligence. In theory, negligence

occurs when an individual or organization is harmed as a result of another person or company

failing to uphold a duty of care or violating the trust placed in them. What makes this

particular case interesting is that McDonald's acknowledged during the trial that it sold its

coffee at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees, meaning that most people would get

third-degree burns from it in two to seven seconds once it came into contact with their skin.

They also acknowledged that they had been warned that the coffee should not be sold for any

higher than 130 degrees. Therefore, McDonald's is negligent in this particular circumstance.

In the end, the jury decided that McDonald's had violated their duty of care and that they

should have known better than to sell coffee to customers at temperatures between 180 and

190 degrees, knowing that doing so could result in a third-degree burn. Despite this

knowledge, the company chose to ignore the over 700 cases of burns and continued to

operate as usual. As a result, the jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages,

which were later lowered to $160,000 due to her partly culpability, and $2.7 million due to
McDonald's callous behavior. At the time, McDonald's made $1.3 million a day from coffee

sales.

Second: According to Strict Liability, Stella Liebeck suffered severe injuries after spilling the

coffee she had just purchased from McDonald's and placing it on her lap. She had expected to

enjoy her cup of coffee, not burn herself, but instead ended up with third-degree burns all

over her body, scarring over 17% of her body, and days in the hospital. She was also rendered

incapacitated for more than two years. Later, she made many attempts to get in touch with

McDonald's in an attempt to persuade them to at least partially pay for her medical bills and

the money she lost while she was out of work. This is another instance of strict liability,

which is the legal doctrine that holds a person accountable for their actions regardless of their

motivation or state of mind at the time of the offense. Although the corporation didn't mean

to harm anyone with their coffee, they finally did, which is why they were punished.

Additionally, they disregarded the unfortunate coffee enthusiast who put their confidence in

them to be accountable and fulfill their duty of care.

Do you think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant

might quickly give you third-degree burns?

Not; many people drank the coffee and many others would have suffered burns to their

throats or even died if a hot cup of coffee from a restaurant is supposed to immediately result

in third-degree burns. It was dangerously hot—I never would have imagined that coffee from

a restaurant could be so hot. It was company policy at McDonald's to serve it hot enough to

burn people severely in a matter of seconds. Mrs. Liebeck's wounds weren't at all

insignificant. Her sweatpants retained the coffee on her skin, absorbing it. She needed skin

grafts on her inner thighs as well as other areas after suffering third-degree burns, the most

severe sort.
How did the jury decide the case? Why do you think the jury decided the case this

way?

The case of Mrs. Liebeck was not a unique one. In the past, McDonald's had received over

700 claims of coffee-related injuries, including some involving third-degree burns, and had

settled some of these instances. Mrs. Liebeck proposed a $20,000 settlement to compensate

her for missed wages and medical costs. However, McDonald's never made an offer of more

than $800. Due to their negligence, they assumed that the matter would be resolved amicably,

much like previous cases, and they had no idea that it would go to trial. Mrs. Liebeck's

compensation for her injuries was reduced when the jury determined that she was largely to

blame for them. However, the jury's punitive damages award made headlines and deeply

infuriated many. They were angry that McDonald's refused to change a policy despite

hundreds of people being harmed by their coffee, so as retaliation, they gave Liebeck the

equivalent of two days' worth of coffee sales revenue for the chain of restaurants. That wasn't

the end of it, though; the judge later decreased the punitive damage amount that had been

granted to Mrs. Liebeck by more than 80 percent. Thus, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald's

eventually came to a private settlement to prevent what most certainly would have been years

of appeals. The jury decided to award 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages.

By considering the information and proof below, they reached a decision.

● According to the franchisee's operating handbook, coffee must be kept between 180

and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. If spilled, coffee at such a temperature can burn skin in

the third degree in three to seven seconds.

● Both the chief editor of the premier academic journal on burn care and rehabilitation,

the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, and the chairman of the University of
 Texas Department of Mechanical and Biomechanical Engineering testified that this

risk of harm is intolerable.

● McDonald's acknowledged that for over a decade, it had been aware of the potential

for severe burns from its very hot coffee. It had been made aware of the risk on

several occasions through past lawsuits and claims.

● The firm's expert witness stated that the billions of coffee cups the company serves

annually make the number of burns trivial.

● Afterward, the Wall Street Journal was informed by a juror that she believed the firm

was not considering the injuries seriously. Considering the millions of cups of coffee

provided, the 700 damage instances resulting from hot coffee appeared insignificant

to the corporate restaurant behemoth. But "there was a person behind every number

and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that," the juror

pointed out.

● During the trial, McDonald's acknowledged that customers were not aware of the

serious burn risk associated with spilled coffee served at the required temperature.

● The company also acknowledged that it failed to warn customers about the nature and

extent of this risk and could not provide an explanation for its failure to do so.

● The quality assurance manager for McDonald's testified that the coffee was unfit for

consumption at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups because it

would burn the mouth and throat.

In conclusion, everyone is aware that coffee is served hot and that we should all occasionally

exercise caution while handling it. However, what was formerly considered a social and

cultural standard began to take on a life of its own since it was decided upon by our most
intelligent legislators and was deemed appropriate. The most crucial thing is to always act in

the best interests of others, even when the world and the law are not always fair.

References;

"Know the Facts:" The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case. Retrieved 26 April 2021, from

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Strict Liability. Retrieved 26 April 2021, from

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability