Question

From my business law class.

Briefly summarize the Liebeck v McDonald's case. ( Found on your Canvas page at Week 2)

What defense to product liability was at issue? Explain.

Answer 1

Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000, but the company refused.

McDonald’s offered Liebeck only $800—which did not even cover her medical expenses. When the case went to trial, the jurors saw graphic photos of Liebeck’s burns.

They heard experts testify about how hot coffee should be and that McDonald’s coffee was 30 to 40 degrees hotter than coffee served by other companies

. The jury learned that 700 other people—including children—had been burned before, yet the company did not change its policy of keeping coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees. The company knew its coffee was causing serious burns.

Restaurants. Facts: Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old woman from Albuquerque in New Mexico, bought a cup of coffee at McDonald’s drive-in restaurant. She opened the cup of coffee and placed between her legs. She spilled the cup all over her lower body and she suffered third- degree burns on this part of body.

Reasoning of the court: Served coffee was very hot (82-88 °C), this temperature causes third- degree burns in two to seven seconds. Very important documents were more than 700 reports of  people burned by McDonald's coffee.

The jury decided that Liebeck is responsible for 20% and McDonald’s is responsible for 80%, despite the fact that on the cup of coffee was warning sign, that this beverage was hot.

Liebeck was awarded $200 000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. These damages were later reduced. Both parties appealed against this decision. Later, parties decided to settle out-of-court and they agreed on damages less than $600 000.

In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald'sdrive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald's and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

In fact, upon examining the details of this case, you might come away with an entirely different point of view. This is not a case of greed; it’s a case of a large corporation refusing to address an  elderly woman’s reasonable request for compensation for medical costs.

In this case summary, you’ll see what actually happened, how Liebeck sought reasonable compensation, and how, by refusing to pay that compensation, McDonald’s set themselves up for a much larger suit.