Business Law I
Drop Box 1
Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald 's case become one of the hot news in 1992, When Stella sued McDonald 's for serving excessive hot coffee. Because of extreme hot coffee she got third degrees burn in her lap. In this case, Plaintiff has mentioned all the consequences and factual information to prove to jury that she got third degree burn from excessive hot coffee. She addressed 6% of her body was burned. Plaintiffs ' expert, a scholar in the thermodynamics applied to human skin burn testified that liquid, at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin within 7 second (“Consumer Attorney of California”). Plaintiff also proved that she was in the passenger seat and she has …show more content…
This is a negligence of McDonald 's who sales, excessive hot coffee claiming to keep that tasty and also refused to reduce the temperature even after the company was about to sue. I think this also falls in the line of damages that were retained as a result of McDonald’s negligence. It wasn’t enough that McDonald’s admitted that temperature was extremely hot, but fail to admit the damage made by coffee (Stella Leibeck’s ‘hot coffee’ McDonald’s Lawsuit 1992). The company only ready to pay $800 while defendant was asking for $20000 for medical treatment. Another factual information was not only Stella filed complaint more than 700 people filed complaint against McDonald’s. These are the written proof to sue the McDonald’s. Even Stella want to get certain amount of money and close her case McDonald’s refused to give compensatory damage. For McDonald’ s customer safety seems doesn’t matter company directly refused to give compensation saying their revenue from coffee per day is far exceed than the few damages it does. This is completely against human right, customer satisfaction, and safety. After all black and forth Stella was awarded both compensatory and punitive damages, jury decided to give her 2.7 million as compensatory damage …show more content…
A person knows coffee is hot should keep that to cool down and drink after few minutes rather right after it poured into a cup. Moreover, I found that the car didn’t have cup holder and she putted in between her knees and while making coffee she spilled in her lap. My research gave me a conclusion that neither the plaintiff nor the McDonald’s is fully responsible for this accident. It is McDonald’s negligence not to accept the truth that their hot coffee caused that accident. More they refused to decrease the temperature after this incident happened, the news spread all over the world. It seems they don’t care about customer health and safety. I found it is her fault as well she should have cool down the temperature first and made coffee so she mightn’t have that accident. This was the reason the jury declined her punitive damage and gave her only three times of compensatory damage.
California, “Consumer Attorney of California”. McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case. 18 February 2016. Web. www.caoc.org. “The Lectric Law Library”. Customized Legal Forms. 1996. Web.www.leclaw.com.
Stella Liebeck’s ‘hot coffee’ McDonald’s Lawsuit: The truth. “Daily mail.com”. Associated Newspapers
Ltd. Metro Media Group.1992. Web.www.dailymail.com