Comparison Of Mcdonald's V. Stella Liebeck Case

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

Witnesses for the complainant: Anatoly Zlatokrasov, owner of AZTE, Steven, Pinkow, Joshua, Teodor Epelbaum, owner of AZTE, and Andrei Lissenkov, owner of Livox and JCP Autos.

Anderson and the other families were not concerned about the money they would receive if they would have won the case. They were more concerned with finding out who did this and they wanted an apology, Anderson states, “I want somebody to come to my house and say "we're responsible we did this, we didn't mean it, but we did it and we're sorry"” [1]. When Schlichtmann informed Anderson about the money they lost from pursuing the case she responded with, “How can you even begin to compare what you've lost, to what we've lost,” she was only looking for an apology and they turned it into the want for money [1]. The plaintiffs' case against W.R. Grace was stronger for two reasons: Schlichtmann had a personal testimony of a former employee of W.R. Grace who had witnessed dumping, and a river between Beatrice's tannery and the contaminated wells made their contribution to the contamination less plausible. However, the Judge dismissed the case against Beatrice Foods. Schlichtmann took both companies to appeal court, “only five cases in fifty will win an appeal the odds are as easy to calculate as they are discouraging,”[1].which ended in both companies being shut down and 69.4 million dollars in clean-up costs for both companies as

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted to a new site on the body, and other medical assistance that reach over $100,000. She and her family tried to reach McDonals to get a settlement for the damages, but was welcomed with denial and lack of cooperation in settlements and coverage for medical expenses, so the family decided to sue the company for gross negligence.

The court didn’t approve summary judgment for product liability claims because the Nadel’s failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at 175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second-degree burns. The articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have no value as evidence.

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

Ms. Liebeck hired attorney, Reed Morgan, to help her with the situation. It is important to understand legal warranties and product liability to fully grasp the legal mechanics of the Liebeck v. McDonald's case. "Products liability refers to the liability incurred by a seller of goods when the goods, because of a defect in them, cause personal injury or property damage to the buyer, a user, or a third party" (Oswald, 2011, p. 365). "A warranty is a contractual promise by a seller or lesser that the goods that he sells or leases confirm to certain standards, qualities, or characteristics" (Oswald, 2011, p. 356). According to Enghagen and Gilardi (2002), "personal-injury tort cases are regulated by the individual states" (p. 55). "Typically,

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

A Civil Action is based upon a true story that Jonathan Harr, a former staff writer of New England Monthly describes a case that in the legal system that is fascinating and compelling. The story of a impracticable quest by an idealistic young personal-Injury lawyer, whose aim was to prove that two conglomerates, Beatrice Foods and W.R Grace, allegedly polluted the water in Woburn ,Mass. a Boston suburb, with carcinogens. Jan had hoped that a victory would send a message to the boardrooms to America and felt that the culture of Leukemia in Woburn guaranteed his success. He never realized that he would be comforted with problems in the justice system.

In addition, McDonald’s has been facing a series of lawsuits and defamations. An example of such

McDonalds was not totally at fault in this case. Liebeck would have avoided the accident if she was more careful while handling the coffee. She had difficulties in opening the lid of the cup during her initial attempt. She completely disregarded her own safety by placing the cup in between her legs and tried to open the lid then. After the failed attempt, she should have waited until she had gone home for her to drink the coffee or she should have asked her grandson to do it for her. Being in shock is natural in her circumstances but she stayed in her seat for a good 3 minutes before jumping off. By then the coffee had already absorbed which led to her third degree burns.