The case of Stella Liebeck
This is classic case that happened in 1992 in the parking lot of a McDonald restaurant. Stella Liebeck who was 72 years old purchased a cup of coffee that accidently spilled and burned her. She suffered third degree burn. She sued McDonald for damages and the case finally went to court and was settled.
There are a number of things that we firstly have to define in this case in-order to fully understand the legality of the case. This case is center around tort law, let define and explain what is a tort law. Tort law is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. In the case of Stella Liebeck vs Mc
Donald Stella Liebeck is considered the plaintiff and McDonald is the tortfeasor or the defendant. As an awareness, there are three types of tort laws, intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Discussing the various tort laws will …show more content…
Because according to strict tort law McDonald who happens to have provided the product is liable for the defect of the product. In the case of Stella Liebeck her injury was cause by the product. McDonald brewed the product and had the responsibility of taking several steps to insure the safety of the customers.
Ms. Liebeck lawyers believe McDonald was liable because the company is responsible for the product and had the full responsibility of making sure it was safe for consumption in this case and secondly to adequately inform the client about the product and what could possibly go wrong if the customer does not follow their instructions. McDonald did not inform the customer neither did they take the necessary precaution to safe guard the customer. Ms. Stella Liebeck anticipated that the product was warm but not hot to a point where she could have received a third degree
This is classic case that happened in 1992 in the parking lot of a McDonald restaurant. Stella Liebeck who was 72 years old purchased a cup of coffee that accidently spilled and burned her. She suffered third degree burn. She sued McDonald for damages and the case finally went to court and was settled.
There are a number of things that we firstly have to define in this case in-order to fully understand the legality of the case. This case is center around tort law, let define and explain what is a tort law. Tort law is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. In the case of Stella Liebeck vs Mc
Donald Stella Liebeck is considered the plaintiff and McDonald is the tortfeasor or the defendant. As an awareness, there are three types of tort laws, intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Discussing the various tort laws will …show more content…
Because according to strict tort law McDonald who happens to have provided the product is liable for the defect of the product. In the case of Stella Liebeck her injury was cause by the product. McDonald brewed the product and had the responsibility of taking several steps to insure the safety of the customers.
Ms. Liebeck lawyers believe McDonald was liable because the company is responsible for the product and had the full responsibility of making sure it was safe for consumption in this case and secondly to adequately inform the client about the product and what could possibly go wrong if the customer does not follow their instructions. McDonald did not inform the customer neither did they take the necessary precaution to safe guard the customer. Ms. Stella Liebeck anticipated that the product was warm but not hot to a point where she could have received a third degree