Question

At the end of this week, you reviewed a video of the attorney of Stella Liebeck in Liebeck v. McDonald's when discussing products liability. Liebeck spilled hot McDonald’s coffee in her lap, suffering third-degree burns. At trial, evidence showed that her cup of coffee was brewed at 190 degrees, and that, more typically, a restaurant’s “hot coffee” is in the range of 140-160 degrees. A jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000, or three times the compensatory award.

Were the damages reasonable?

What is the purpose of compensatory and punitive damages?

Did contributory negligence play a factor?

Answer 1

Yes, the damages were reasonable. This is because McDonald’s displayed a sheer disregard for customer safety and the injuries sustained by the woman were very serious. McDonald’s was aware of the problem and but did not took concrete steps and actions to warn the customers. The company also failed to change the temperature at which it served its coffee.

Compensatory damages are the money that is awarded to the plaintiff to compensate him/her for the damages or the injury or any other loss incurred by the plaintiff. Thus the purpose of compensatory damage is to simply pay the person who was injured (i.e. the plaintiff). Punitive damages are imposed with the intention to reform (or deter) the defendant from engaging in activities and wrongful conduct that are similar to the ones that led to the present lawsuit. Thus the purpose of the punitive damage is to punish the defendant for the wrongdoing and deter the defendant to indulge in same type of activities and conduct in the future.

Contributory negligence is the failure on the part of the injured party to act in a prudent manner. In this case contributory negligence did play a factor. Ms. Liebeck spilled the coffee on her lap despite the cup being in her control. The cup was put by her between her knees and this was a negligent action on her part. However the court awarded the damages on the basis of comparative negligence.