INTRODUCTION
The famous McDonald’s coffee spilling case became a legal legend because the outline of the case creates a perfect setting for a frivolous law suit that accumulates the greatest fears of the covetous view:a person makes a foolish mistake and is injured as a result but refuses to take ownership of the accident, finds a bulging purse to blame and is awarded a large sum of money. The plaintiff Stella Liebeck a 79-year-old retired departmental store clerk was burnt by hot coffee that was served to her by the defendant McDonalds’s Lieback had gone out with her grandson when the incident occurred. With more than 32000 restaurants globally McDonald’s dominates the fast food industry McDonalds has achieved extraordinary success and it is what America chooses freely. The case attracted a lot of media and large segments of the public was involved. When McDonald’s is involved in a lawsuit the public takes notice because the name McDonald’s elicits a multitude of powerful meanings. This case got picked up by the media and the punch line of the story became:” A woman made 2.7 million dollars by spilling coffee on her. “The case became a cautionary tale and an essential component in any tort law reform debate.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson Chris ‘s Ford Probe when she ordered …show more content…
They owed a duty of care to the customers which they breached. McDonald’s was aware that it was serving dangerously hot coffee. At first they said that they thought that the customers would go home and have their coffee and by then it would cool down. However, later they agreed that they knew that many of their customers would consume the coffee immediately. All these factors convinced the jury that McDonald’s was aware that it was acting unreasonably. Hence the claim of negligence was established
The famous McDonald’s coffee spilling case became a legal legend because the outline of the case creates a perfect setting for a frivolous law suit that accumulates the greatest fears of the covetous view:a person makes a foolish mistake and is injured as a result but refuses to take ownership of the accident, finds a bulging purse to blame and is awarded a large sum of money. The plaintiff Stella Liebeck a 79-year-old retired departmental store clerk was burnt by hot coffee that was served to her by the defendant McDonalds’s Lieback had gone out with her grandson when the incident occurred. With more than 32000 restaurants globally McDonald’s dominates the fast food industry McDonalds has achieved extraordinary success and it is what America chooses freely. The case attracted a lot of media and large segments of the public was involved. When McDonald’s is involved in a lawsuit the public takes notice because the name McDonald’s elicits a multitude of powerful meanings. This case got picked up by the media and the punch line of the story became:” A woman made 2.7 million dollars by spilling coffee on her. “The case became a cautionary tale and an essential component in any tort law reform debate.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson Chris ‘s Ford Probe when she ordered …show more content…
They owed a duty of care to the customers which they breached. McDonald’s was aware that it was serving dangerously hot coffee. At first they said that they thought that the customers would go home and have their coffee and by then it would cool down. However, later they agreed that they knew that many of their customers would consume the coffee immediately. All these factors convinced the jury that McDonald’s was aware that it was acting unreasonably. Hence the claim of negligence was established