The case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants made worldwide coverage as a result of a large sum of money being awarded to the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck. The whole case became a media fiasco, and it gave some people proof that reforms are needed to combat these “frivolous lawsuits”. The legacy of this case lives on in critiques of the case, jokes, case studies for law students, and a good primer to apply principles of business ethics. The most important issue in regards to this case is determining the responsible party for Stella’s injuries from the spilled cup of coffee. I feel that as a result of McDonald’s being more at fault than Mrs. Liebeck, her monetary award was fair. According to the jury, she was twenty percent responsible,
…show more content…
In this type of law, known as tort law, there are two defenses, one is called contributory negligence and the other is called comparative negligence. In an article in The Yale Law Journal titled “Contributory and Comparative Negligence: A Reappraisal”, Gary T Schwartz defines contributory negligence as, “In its orthodox form, the defense completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery.”(Schwartz 697), with comparative negligence being defined by, “the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the proportion of his negligence to the sum of his negligence and the defendant’s” (Schwartz 698). McDonald’s served its coffee at levels close to boiling (between 180 and 190 degrees F) and didn’t have a large enough warning on their cups of coffee. Stella Liebeck showed her negligence by holding the hot cup of coffee between her legs so that she could remove the lid to add her cream and sugar. The most noteworthy aspect of the case was her award of punitive damages to the tune of $2.7 million. It has been deemed “excessive” by many, but punitive damages serve a different function than compensatory damages. Punitive damages are meant to deter the defendant from letting the same situation happen again. The award was based on the fact that McDonald’s had received almost 700 complaints from customers spilling coffee and burning themselves. McDonald’s refused to change its coffee’s temperature of
In this type of law, known as tort law, there are two defenses, one is called contributory negligence and the other is called comparative negligence. In an article in The Yale Law Journal titled “Contributory and Comparative Negligence: A Reappraisal”, Gary T Schwartz defines contributory negligence as, “In its orthodox form, the defense completely bars the plaintiff’s recovery.”(Schwartz 697), with comparative negligence being defined by, “the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the proportion of his negligence to the sum of his negligence and the defendant’s” (Schwartz 698). McDonald’s served its coffee at levels close to boiling (between 180 and 190 degrees F) and didn’t have a large enough warning on their cups of coffee. Stella Liebeck showed her negligence by holding the hot cup of coffee between her legs so that she could remove the lid to add her cream and sugar. The most noteworthy aspect of the case was her award of punitive damages to the tune of $2.7 million. It has been deemed “excessive” by many, but punitive damages serve a different function than compensatory damages. Punitive damages are meant to deter the defendant from letting the same situation happen again. The award was based on the fact that McDonald’s had received almost 700 complaints from customers spilling coffee and burning themselves. McDonald’s refused to change its coffee’s temperature of