Written Assignment ________________________________________ Research the case of Stella Liebeck, an elderly grandmother who received third-degree burns when she spilled coffee purchased at a McDonald’s drive-through. What was the basis of her claim against McDonald's? Was the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability? Why did Ms. Liebeck's lawyers believe that McDonald's was liable to Ms. Liebeck? Do you think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give you third degree burns? How did the jury decide the case? Why do you think the jury decided the case this way? Be sure to explain your answers thoroughly. Prepare a 1,500 word (double-spaced) essay. The paper should be 12-point …show more content…
When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors both contributed to cause the plaintiff's damages. It is a modification of the doctrine of contributory negligence which disallows any recovery by a plaintiff whose negligence contributed even minimally to causing the damages.” (Wikipedia)). Even though they did put a warning on the cup of coffee, the jury found that the warning was not enough, or/and large enough. Ms. Liebeck’s attorney filed a suit accusing McDonalds of “gross negligence” (“"Gross negligence" is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party, who may typically recover exemplary damages." (Wikipedia)). He believe that McDonalds was serving and selling coffee that was too hot and call it “unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively …show more content…
This lady was mock on several talk show and comedy shows as well. It was even said that “the case became the perfect poster for tort reform” and that it was a frivolous lawsuits. If you would like to see picture of her actual burns, go to google and type: Stella liebeck burn photos. I DO HAVE TO WARN YOU THAT SOME PICTURES MAYBE BE VERY GRAPHICS TO SOME PEOPLE. Photos of the coffee burn in the Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s case: https://www.google.com/search?q=stella+liebeck+burn+photos&client=firefox-b&biw=1366&bih=628&noj=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZzeDgwJXPAhVLkx4KHVEwBkAQ_AUICCgB#imgrc=_ The actual facts of this case were change so much by the media, the information was not right and especially the details were completely wrong. When this case first appeared, it was known as the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case, and most people the basics of the case or even where and where was it tried. This all happened before internet become the main source of information. The usual reaction and response to this case was: “Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald’s didn’t pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn’t paying attention.” Ms. Estella