When we are injured, either directly or indirectly, as a result of another parties’ actions, who is responsible for the injury and are there more than one correct answer? How does the doctrine of Caveat Emptor affect the argument and does age play a part in the applicability of this principle? What about implicit contracts that occur during transactions – how do they affect the parties involved? We will be examining these questions through the lens of one of the most prominent injury cases in The United States – Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurants.
In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck and her grandson purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant drive-thru in New Mexico. After paying for the coffee, Ms. Liebeck’s placed the cup of coffee between her legs and removed the lid so she could add cream and sugar to the coffee, but the liquid inside the cup spilled out over her legs and into her lap resulting in 3rd degree burns. How is it possible a cup of coffee could cause such extensive damage? During litigation, McDonald’s admitted they served their coffee at 185 degrees F, well in excess of the 155-degree threshold at which burns would occur. Moreover, internal memorandum from the McDonald’s corporation seemed to indicate many other people had complained about burns and that McDonald’s chose not to change the …show more content…
One of the first considerations in this case is Caveat Emptor, and it’s effect on liability. Caveat Emptor, or the colloquialism “buyer beware” is the idea that it is the responsibility of the purchaser of a buyer of a good or service to determine its value and fitness for use. If we use this principle to determine responsibility, we can clearly see that Stella Liebeck alone is responsible for her
In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck and her grandson purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant drive-thru in New Mexico. After paying for the coffee, Ms. Liebeck’s placed the cup of coffee between her legs and removed the lid so she could add cream and sugar to the coffee, but the liquid inside the cup spilled out over her legs and into her lap resulting in 3rd degree burns. How is it possible a cup of coffee could cause such extensive damage? During litigation, McDonald’s admitted they served their coffee at 185 degrees F, well in excess of the 155-degree threshold at which burns would occur. Moreover, internal memorandum from the McDonald’s corporation seemed to indicate many other people had complained about burns and that McDonald’s chose not to change the …show more content…
One of the first considerations in this case is Caveat Emptor, and it’s effect on liability. Caveat Emptor, or the colloquialism “buyer beware” is the idea that it is the responsibility of the purchaser of a buyer of a good or service to determine its value and fitness for use. If we use this principle to determine responsibility, we can clearly see that Stella Liebeck alone is responsible for her