Question

Read the following scenario and in the lawsuit of Stella v McDonalds, list up to three arguments in favor of Stella and up to three arguments in Favor of McDonalds.

“I’m Stella Liebeck. I was in the car with my grandson one day, and he drove up to a McDonalds drive-thru. He asked me if I wanted anything. Of course I did! It’s McDonalds! So, I got a cup of coffee. Hey, I was 79. I needed a little caffeine. They handed him his order (Big Mac, supersized, and my coffee). He pulled over to the side of the line so I could add some milk and sugar. I had the cup balanced on my knees and took the lid off, and hot coffee spilled all over me! I spent 8 days in the hospital having skin cut off my body and grafted onto my knees to replace the burned skin! It was awful! My cotton sweatpants absorbed the coffee, scalding my thighs, buttocks, and groin. I suffered third-degree burns on six percent of my skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. I lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), I lost so much weight I only weighed 83 pounds and had to undergo two more years of medical treatment.”

Answer 1

Three arguments in favour of Stella that establish liability of Mcdonalds.

(i) The serving termperature of the coffee was inappropriate and much more than the ideal temperature. Had the temperature been adequate, the burns would not have been severe. The injuries were a result of negligence of a staff member for which the company is liable.

(ii) There was a design flaw in the cup and lid. The lid would not come out easily, and due to application of excessive force, the coffee spilled. The company is liable because it coud not ensure safety of the customer, as the flaw and the outcom could have been foreseen.

(iii) The drivethrough had insufficient space for movement of the car, or the road was bumpy, which led to the incident. The company could not fulfill the premise liability.

The arguments in favour of company.

(i) The customer was too old to hold the cup, and she spilled the coffee. The company is not liable for incident.

(ii) The person on driving set suddenly braked the car, which led to the incident. His negligence led to the incident which can be ascertained from the footage of incident.

(iii) The cold temperature outside forces the company to deliver the coffee at slightly higher temperature during winter. The person handing over the coffee specifically warned the person who received the coffee about the temperature of the cup. He failed to  warn his grandmother about it, and the incident happened. Since it is because of the communication gap, the company is not liable.