Liebeck V. Mcdonalds
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.
The facts in the Liebeck case start with the incident description as recounted by Aric Press in the March 20, 1995 issue of Newsweek. Ms. Liebeck was a recently retired, 79 year old woman who ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive through and received it in a lidded, styrofoam cup (Press, 1995, p. 32).
After the order was picked up, her grandson pulled his car forward and stopped so that she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. After placing the cup between her knees since the car had no cup holders, she attempted to remove the plastic lid. The entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap, burning her severely. Subsequently, Ms. Liebeck suffered second and third degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks (Press, 1995, p.32). Ms. Liebeck spent several days in the hospital for her burns and another period of weeks at home recuperating. Subsequently, she was readmitted to the hospital for skin grafts. (Press, 1995, p. 3).
It was confirmed that the coffee was stored at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, per industry standards (Howard, 1994, p.1), which is likely to cause third degree burns with only a few seconds exposure. The temperature at which McDonald’s kept their coffee was reported to be approximately 40 degrees hotter than that made in a home brewed pot of coffee (Howard, 1994, p.1).
McDonald’s had previously received reports of over seven hundred (700) burn incidents form scalding hot coffee and had not at all reacted to the situation (Press, 1995, p. 32). Prior to the incident in question, Ms....
Please login to view the full essay...