Liebeck v. McDonald's
Introduction
The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case is a very popular case that occurred in 1992.
This case was not only popular but grossly misinformed as most of the events of this case were factually incorrect when reported to the public. People say she had ordered the coffee and spilt it on herself while driving out of the McDonald’s Drive Thru. This is false. In reality, Stella Liebeck, an elderly lady of 79 was in the passenger seat while her grandson was driving. As she got her coffee, her grandson left the Drive Thru and stopped the car so she could put cream and sugar in her beverage. While she opened the cap of the coffee which was lodged between her knees, it spilt all over her inner thighs, genitals and buttocks causing
…show more content…
McDonald’s believed, according to sources, that the revenue they make from the billions of coffees sold outweigh the legal repercussions of accidents caused by the coffee.
Was the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability?
The alleged tort was neither intentional nor did it contain aspects of being strict liability. The alleged tort was obviously negligence on the part of McDonald’s. Extra precautionary care and warnings need to be established to prevent people from being hurt not to mention a decrease in the temperature of the coffee. McDonald’s has a simple duty to serve food and beverages without putting their customers in harm’s way which they breached and did not take care of. Not only that, McDonald’s showed no remorse and no intention of righting their wrongs especially before Liebeck went to trial and they offered her a measly $800 for her troubles.
Negligence is defined as the breach of duty towards a person. Everyone is supposed to conduct themselves in a manner that exercising care and caution in all dealings of life. Reckless behavior and even neglecting bad situations is an example