Question

In a world of get-rich-quick schemes, few are mentioned more frequently than lawsuits. One of the reasons is the infamous McDonald’s coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants). This is what happened in 1992 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Stella Liebeck, seventy-nine, was riding in a car driven by her grandson. They stopped at a McDonald’s drive-through, where she purchased a Styrofoam cup of coffee. Wanting to add cream and sugar, she squeezed the cup between her knees and pulled off the plastic lid. The entire thing spilled back into her lap. The searing liquid left her with extensive third-degree burns. Eight days of hospitalization—which included skin grafts—were required. Initially, she sought $20,000 from McDonald’s, which was more or less the cost of her medical bills. McDonald’s refused. They went to court. There it came to light that about seven hundred claims had been made by consumers between 1982 and 1992 for similar incidents. This seems to indicate that McDonald’s knew—or at least should have known—that the hot coffee was a problem. Most of the rest of the case turned around temperature questions. McDonald’s admitted that they served their coffee at 185 degrees, which will burn the mouth and throat and is about 50 degrees higher than typical homemade coffee. More importantly, coffee served at temperatures up to 155 degrees won’t cause burns, but the danger rises abruptly with each degree above that limit. So why did McDonald’s serve it so hot? Most customers, the company claimed, bought on the way to work or home and would drink it on arrival. The high temperature would keep it fresh until then. Unfortunately, internal documents showed that McDonald’s knew their customers intended to drink the coffee in the car immediately after purchase. Next, McDonald’s asserted that their customers wanted their coffee hot. The restaurant conceded, however, that customers were unaware of the serious burn danger and that no adequate warning of the threat’s severity was provided. Finally, the jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (about two days’ worth of McDonalds’ coffee sales). The judge, however, reduced the $2.7 million to $480,000. McDonald’s threatened to appeal, and the two sides eventually came to a private settlement agreement.

The concept of manufacturer liability gives consumers the right to sue manufacturers for defective goods. There are three kinds of product defect: Design defects (errors in the product’s design) Manufacturing defects (errors in the production of one specific case of a generally safe product) Instructional defects (poor or incomplete instructions for a product’s safe use) Which (if any) of these defects are applicable in the McDonald’s coffee case? Explain.

What is the concept of strict product liability, and how could it be applicable in this case?

Answer 1

Strict product liability is a concept of making the manufacture or seller or disributor,liable to a consumet who was injured by using their defective product. In this type of cases before making manufacturer or sellers liable to damages caused, the paintiff should prove him self that he or she not used the product knowingly in a way which causes injury, he used the product in a uninted way i.e damage caused just because of his owm careless ness, there is an evidence that the product was not the cause of injury. If the plaintiff proves the above then there will be chance of making that manufacturer or sellers liable to damages caused by their product.

As it was allready given in the case there are three types of product defects namely, design defect, manufacturing defect, incomplete instruction. At the same time plantiff should also prove that the product which was sold is in dangerous condition, there is no change is product, it caused injury to the property of the plaintiff.

The above concept is applicable to the McDonald's case, as the Liebeck proved that she was injured just because of hot coffee sold by the MCDONALD'S which is in dangerous condition without any warning or instructions to use that product. And at the same time she also proved in the above case that her negligence is not the cause for her injury. In this way the concept of strict product liability applies to the above given Liebeck vs McDonald's case.

I think, incomplete instruction is the reason for product defect. Because, the product was designed in such a watly i.e making at a temperature more than the standarded safe level to keep it fresh for more time in that climatic conditions. So, there is no defect in design or manufacture but McDonald's should warn that coffee will cause serious burns if improperly handelled, and a sticke on the coffee cup mentioning this type of warning which the consumer on seeing that warning he may take care in handelling the coffee which is too hot.