According to Finzen (2003, Feb. 11), “The tort reform campaign has gained much wider acceptance, however, in the jury box. Many jurors now treat as self-evident the notion that the nation is plagued with “frivolous” lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts. The rich and greedy plaintiff's lawyer has become a part of American folklore” (Finzen, 2003 Feb. 11). In this paper I am going to be talking about the relevant law of this case, the applicable facts of this case, and whether this case suggests the need for tort reform.
Relevant Law of This Case According to Dedman and White (2014, April 15), Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee and was sitting in her grandson’s car. She put the cup of coffee between her knees to take the lid off to put cream and sugar in it. When she took the lid off, the cup slipped and fell all over her lap and seeped through her sweatpants and gave her third degree burns on her thighs. She sued McDonalds, saying that they didn’t have any warnings on their cups on how hot the coffee was, and that their coffee wasn’t just …show more content…
But since she was found to be partially negligent, she received around $500,000 from McDonalds. I think we need tort reform, as long as it doesn’t put so many limits on what victims get in awards. I believe that victims should receive awards to compensate them for what they went through, but I also think it shouldn’t exceed 500,000 dollars more than what they originally sued for. Like in the Liebeck case, she sued for $200,000 but the jury decided to give her almost 3 million dollars, which to me, seems a little bit crazy. I’m not saying that Liebeck and her family didn’t deserve that money, especially having to go through court and everything, but the jury should give victims what they are asking for, and something a little extra to help them, but not 2.9 million
Relevant Law of This Case According to Dedman and White (2014, April 15), Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee and was sitting in her grandson’s car. She put the cup of coffee between her knees to take the lid off to put cream and sugar in it. When she took the lid off, the cup slipped and fell all over her lap and seeped through her sweatpants and gave her third degree burns on her thighs. She sued McDonalds, saying that they didn’t have any warnings on their cups on how hot the coffee was, and that their coffee wasn’t just …show more content…
But since she was found to be partially negligent, she received around $500,000 from McDonalds. I think we need tort reform, as long as it doesn’t put so many limits on what victims get in awards. I believe that victims should receive awards to compensate them for what they went through, but I also think it shouldn’t exceed 500,000 dollars more than what they originally sued for. Like in the Liebeck case, she sued for $200,000 but the jury decided to give her almost 3 million dollars, which to me, seems a little bit crazy. I’m not saying that Liebeck and her family didn’t deserve that money, especially having to go through court and everything, but the jury should give victims what they are asking for, and something a little extra to help them, but not 2.9 million