1. The question is whether, under an implied warranty of merchantability if the coffee that was sold to Mrs. Leibeck was served in a defective state unfit for their ordinary purpose, and that the coffee that was served was the same quality and value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances.
2. The question is whether; under the provisions of an implied warranty of fitness, did McDonalds know of the dangerous condition inherent in serving its coffee at 180-190 degrees “so hot” that it makes the coffee dangerous and defective? Where they aware of the consequences of such acts? Did they know the risks involved and acted with a conscious indifference and willful and wanton disregard for the safety of Stella and any other consumer of the product? …show more content…
The question is whether Mrs. Liebeck, under the state’s law of comparative negligence could she be partially responsible for the spilling of the hot coffee on her own lap, due to her clumsiness in the manner she handled removing the lid on the hot coffee? Can she still recover?
4. The question is whether, Mrs. Liebeck, can sue McDonalds for punitive damages for its willful and wanton disregard of the rights, safety, and welfare of not only Stella Liebeck , but other consumers that purchase coffee in the defective state in which it is sold by defendants, and for the marketing defect of no warning, or in the alternative insufficient warning, because McDonalds was fully aware of innumerable burn cased caused by their negligence of their operation in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of extremely not coffee.
5. The question is whether, Mrs. Liebeck, can receive compensatory damages for her second and third degree burn injuries that required medical treatment, her loss of life’s enjoyment, pain and suffering, and mental
2. The question is whether; under the provisions of an implied warranty of fitness, did McDonalds know of the dangerous condition inherent in serving its coffee at 180-190 degrees “so hot” that it makes the coffee dangerous and defective? Where they aware of the consequences of such acts? Did they know the risks involved and acted with a conscious indifference and willful and wanton disregard for the safety of Stella and any other consumer of the product? …show more content…
The question is whether Mrs. Liebeck, under the state’s law of comparative negligence could she be partially responsible for the spilling of the hot coffee on her own lap, due to her clumsiness in the manner she handled removing the lid on the hot coffee? Can she still recover?
4. The question is whether, Mrs. Liebeck, can sue McDonalds for punitive damages for its willful and wanton disregard of the rights, safety, and welfare of not only Stella Liebeck , but other consumers that purchase coffee in the defective state in which it is sold by defendants, and for the marketing defect of no warning, or in the alternative insufficient warning, because McDonalds was fully aware of innumerable burn cased caused by their negligence of their operation in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of extremely not coffee.
5. The question is whether, Mrs. Liebeck, can receive compensatory damages for her second and third degree burn injuries that required medical treatment, her loss of life’s enjoyment, pain and suffering, and mental