'Liebeck v. McDonalds 1994\r'

'The pillow gaffe of Liebeck vs. McDonald’s, in any case sleep with as the McDonald’s case is mavin of the about controversial tort cases, which check to many did non end with victory either on the vocalization of the plaintiff or of the strong defense, but quite on the time’s growing debates on tort laws and how administration of justices deal and resolve tort cases.  It whitethorn sound ridiculous but this case started with a simple cup of umber.  This is not an ordinary case wherein one could easily which party has been negligent.  In item, it croup be said that both parties set out been negligent and carry their own faults of the incident that gave rise to the dispute.  In important to localize to understand the case better, it is important to know the facts of the case and how the court decided.\r\nThe Facts:\r\nThis case was filed by Stella Liebeck of New Mexico, who, in February 1992, temporary hookup in the rider seat of her grandson’s motorcar, was severely burned by McDonalds’ (The veritable facts somewhat the McDonald’s Coffee Case, n.d.) drinking chocolate by and by it spilled on her legs, groin and buttocks do third-degree burns (bracken, 2005).  From an ordinary perspective, one crowd out watch over this as an ordinary scenario in restaurants and burnt umber bean bean shops and among coffee drinkers, especially those who consume their coffee in wretched vehicles.\r\nBut this is not the case in the McDonald’s case. The case was anchored on the cry that McDonald’s occupy been negligent and that their coffee has been primitively gamy beyond the blueprint temperatures of coffee replyd in another(prenominal) coffee shops and restaurants.  correspond to the article, The Actual Facts About the McDonalds’ Coffee Case, â€Å"McDonalds’ coffee was not only hot, it was scaldingâ€capable of almost instant(prenominal) destruct ion of skin, flesh and muscle”.\r\nMs. Liebeck, was at that time 79 years old and ordered coffee from the local McDonald’s which in turn served the hot coffee in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window.  After receiving the order, his grandson allegedly pulled his car forward to circulate way to other customers and again stopped to intromit Ms. Liebeck to add creamer and sugar to her coffee.  In order to do this, she held the cup with her legs so that she may be able to open the lid and add in the creamer and sugar.  However, as she removed the lid, the hot capacity poured to her lap causing the complained restitution.\r\nThis is as opposed to the cl use up that the car was in motion and the Liebeck was driving the car when the incident happened (The Actual Facts About the McDonald’s case, n.d.).  With this incident, it go off be seen that at one point, the Liebeck’s can be said to concur been contributors to the accident as what McDon ald’s incur claimed that Liebeck was the proximate hunting expedition of the injuries she sustained.   McDonald’s claimed that it was Liebeck who has been negligent and not them because as customers, they should have know that coffee is hot and they should be extra materialistic in intervention coffee especially while in a vehicle whether it be in motion or in full stop. According to the vascular surgeon, Ms. Liebeck suffered full thickness burns at about six percent of her body.  She stayed in the infirmary for eight days and underwent skin grafting, debridement treatments.  She now comes to the court for the settlement of her claim for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses as a result of the incident.  However, McDonald’s refused to pay.\r\nIn its argument, McDonald’s argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way.  They nevertheless admitted that its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a warning but a proctor since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the riskiness (The Actual Facts About the McDonald’s Case, n.d.). The Issue\r\nThe fill in in this case is whether or not McDonald’s has been negligent causing the accident complained off making it liable to pay the medical expenses.\r\nHeld:\r\nThe decision of the court is anchored mainly on tort laws and decided by determining who has been negligent in the incident that caused the violate being complained about.  After trial, the gore ruled in favor of Liebeck awarding her a natural of $200,000 in compensatory damages, which however was alter reduced to only $160,000 after a finding of the instrument panel that McDonald’s was not solely responsible for the accident but instead, Liebeck was a worry 20 percent at fault for the coffee spill (The Actual Facts About the McDonaldâ€⠄¢s Case, n.d.).\r\nIn addition, the jury as well awarded some $2.7 million as punitive damages, an count equal to McDonald’s total sales for two days.  However, the court again humiliate this punitive award of damages to $480,000 although the judge make up McDonald’s to be â€Å"reckless, callous, and willful”  (The Actual Facts About the McDonald’s Case, n.d.).\r\nAccording to Bracken (2005), this ruling of the jury is found upon the determination from the documents presented that Liebeck’s medical bills number to about $10,000 due to the injuries she suffered.  Bracken (2005) also explained that this case â€Å"is an example of why tort cases should not be merely decided on the simple facts”.  Nevertheless, patronage the public nature of the case and the loud discussion that the incident has make, the public really don’t know how the case really ended as the parties came into a secret settlement whose nature and stipulations have never been revealed to the public at all (The Actual Facts About the McDonald’s Case, n.d.).\r\nAs it is provided by Bracken (2005), the McDonald’s case illustrates the implication that cases should not be decided on based solely on the face value of the case because at showtime instance, it can be easily said that McDonald’s was negligent.  However, reviewing the facts of the case and based on human experience, Liebeck has also been negligent enough that the injuries she suffered cannot be blamed on one party alone.  Her own actions and decisions may have also contributed to the happening of the accident.\r\nShe has been negligent in handling the cup of coffee, which a normal person would constantly believed to be hot and can cause blemish even without actually knowing its actual temperature.  This is the sympathy why I think the jury made a faulting in the case because I consider the incident as purely an accident, which may hav e only been aggravated by Liebeck’s negligent handling of the hot coffee.  A normal person would always take extra undecomposedty device in handling potentially harmful objects.  I consider McDonald’s serving of the hot coffee to be totally acceptable in its aim to provide the outgo coffee for its customers.\r\nThe case of McDonald’s should have been judged after an in-depth investigation to determine McDonald’s alleged negligence for three main reasons (Bracken, 2005).  First, according to Bracken (2005), â€Å"this is not the first lawsuit regarding the temperature of McDonald’s coffee illustrating continual negligence by McDonald’s”.  Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against McDonald’s is the fact that on that point have been previous complaints and standardised incidents that may in some manner pertain to its negligence in handling its products and in serving them to customers.\r\nPast experiences sh ould have been enough to get on the company to do something with their hot coffee in order to avoid future similar incidents.  But, this did not happen; McDonald’s seems to have neglected its righteousness to its customers over and supra their responsibility to provide the beat coffee in town; which is to provide them with safe products as well.\r\nSecondly, â€Å"the testimony indicated that McDonald’s coffee is served at between 180 and 190 degrees” (Bracken, 2005).  According to McDonald’s, this temperature is based upon a recommendation that coffee should be served on the above mentioned temperature in order to achieve the best taste that customers crave about (Bracken, 2005).  On this aspect, in that location can be not much gesture but only on issues why McDonald’s seems to have neglected the fact that they knowingly know that the extreme temperature of their coffee can cause effective injuries.  They should have at least us ed more secure packaging than Styrofoam cups.\r\nThirdly, Bracken (2005) also remark how the articles presented failed to indicate that â€Å"McDonald’s attempted to warn consumers of its extreme nature since the company served coffee above the temperature a reasonable nature since the company served coffee above the temperature a reasonable person would expect to induce or consume coffee” (Bracken, 2005). Admittedly, McDonald’s have been negligent on this aspect.  In sum however, after considering all premises, I still believe that the jury erred in ruling in favor of Liebeck and the awards for damages to be excessive.\r\nThis case could in fact serve as a precedent for all other future cases wherein complainants may come to court of similar complaints only to extort sum of silver from companies like McDonald’s.  Clearly, it can be said that McDonald’s has not been solely accountable and negligent in the case.  Liebeck was also neglig ent.  Hence, it could have been enough thet the court awarded her sum of money to cover all her medical expenses and small amount in compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries she sustained.  This could have been one way to educate the consumers that they also have the check responsibility to themselves and not to fully pass it on to providers like McDonald’s.\r\nAs a restaurant owner, possibly one of the waking realization that this case brought is the fact that because tort cases are almost always link to negligent acts, it is important to be very cautious in all aspects of safety in the boilersuit operations of the business.  One very obvious mistake on the part of McDonald’s is their failure to break out sufficient warning to the customers of the extreme temperature that may cause damage to them.  Incidents like the McDonald’s case could have been avoided if customers have been warned, the least on cup labels or by the restaurant sta ff that extreme temperature could be harmful.\r\nIt is sad to note that although many businesses have legitimate intentions to satisfy and to protect their customers; negligent acts, probably by reason of lack of knowledge or prevision seem to cause more controversial issues that broaden to the numerous cases decided and being heard in court dockets.\r\nReferences\r\nBracken, K.  (2005).  Liebeck v. McDonald’s. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from https://listserv.du.edu/pipermail/torts-russell/2005-August/000010.html\r\nThe Actual Facts About the McDonalds’ Coffee Case.  (n.d.).  Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm\r\n \r\n \r\n'