In 1992, a
72-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck was being driven by her grandson, and
the two stopped at a McDonald’s in Albuquerque so that she could buy a cup of
coffee. After purchasing the coffee, Liebeck’s grandson parked in the parking
lot so that she could open up her coffee and add some cream and sugar to it.
She propped the coffee between her legs and she opened it, and soon after, the
coffee spilled into her lap. McDonald’s had a policy, at the time, to serve
their coffee at temperatures between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit, which is
dangerously hot. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants, so the coffee was immediately
absorbed. At the temperature that the coffee was served, it was capable of
causing third degree burns within three seconds, and that’s exactly what it
did. Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns on her thighs and genital area.
She was hospitalized for eight days and she had to receive skin grafts in order
to heal. (Liebeck v. McDonald’s, (n.d.)) In the past, McDonald’s had over 700
cases of people reporting that they had been injured from their hot coffee, but
none of those cases changed anything, but Stella Liebeck’s did. (CAOC, (n.d.))
Liebeck brought this
case to court in 1994. There were many different forms of evidence presented to
the jury at her trial. One of the most important pieces of evidence that was
shown at the trial was a photo of her injuries. Also shown included an excerpt
from the McDonald’s operations manual that stated that their coffee must be
served at temperatures between 180 and 190 degrees. Adding to that, there was
evidence shown that proves that if coffee is spilled at that temperature, burns
will be caused within three to seven seconds. The plaintiff also had evidence
from outside sources including a testimony from the chairman of the department
of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of
Texas. He stated that serving coffee with that high of a risk of harm was
“unacceptable”, and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and
Rehabilitation agreed with this. But also, there was evidence presented from
McDonald’s where they confirmed that they were aware of this risk of injury,
but they thought that injuries like this were “rare” when compared to the
amount of coffee that they serve daily that didn’t come with reports of
injuries. There were also several similar forms of evidence presented at the
trial. (CAOC, (n.d.))
In this case, negligence was the main legal issue
involved in this case. (The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case
FAQ. (n.d.)) Negligence can be defined
as “failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent
person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable
person would not.” (Legal Dictionary, (n.d.)) Liebeck was only hoping for $238,000
at first to cover her medical expenses, her inability to work and make money,
her disfigurement, and her physical and emotional pain. (The
Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ. (n.d.)) McDonald’s initially responded initially by
offering her $800. (Liebeck v. McDonald’s, (n.d.))
The jury did find Stella partially responsible, 20%
responsible. This is because they looked
at the evidence and it is true that she did spill the coffee on herself, even
if the coffee was dangerously hot. (Liebeck v. McDonald’s, (n.d.))
I think that the outcome was fair, I do agree with
the jury that she is partially responsible. But, I also do agree with the fact
that she got compensation for all that she had to go through after being served
dangerously hot coffee. And yes, there were so many misconceptions with the
media. Most people thought that this case was a joke or that she was purposely
trying to make money by burning herself, but the media was not aware that she
wasn’t driving, and they definitely did not know the extent of her injuries
obtained.
Lastly, I
do think that McDonald’s was negligent not only towards Stella Liebeck, but
also to every single person that they served the extremely hot coffee to. They
definitely violated ethical duties by serving this to people, because, in a
way, this shows that they don’t care about how the customers may be affected.
Works Cited
Consumer Attorneys of California.
(n.d.). The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case. Retrieved October
01, 2017, from https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Legal Dictionary – Law.com. (n.d.).
Retrieved October 01, 2017, from
Liebeck v. McDonald’s. (n.d.).
Retrieved October 01, 2017, from
The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s
Hot Coffee Case FAQ. (n.d.). Retrieved October 01, 2017, from
No comments:
Post a Comment