Liebeck v. Mcdonalds 1994

Liebeck v . McDonalds 1994

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .2

Liebeck v . McDonalds .3

References .9

Liebeck v . McDonalds

The case of Liebeck vs . McDonald 's , also known as the McDonald 's case is one of the most controversial tort cases , which according to many did not end with victory either on the part of the plaintiff or of the strong defense , but rather on the time 's growing debates on tort laws and how courts deal and resolve tort cases . It may sound ridiculous but this case

started with a simple cup of coffee . This is not an ordinary case wherein one could easily which party has been negligent . In fact it can be said that both parties have been negligent and have their own faults of the incident that gave rise to the dispute . In important to to understand the case better , it is important to know the facts of the case and how the court decided

The Facts

This case was d by Stella Liebeck of New Mexico , who , in February 1992 , while in the passenger seat of her grandson 's car , was severely burned by McDonalds (The Actual facts About the McDonald 's Coffee Case n .d ) coffee after it spilled on her legs , groin and buttocks causing third-degree burns (Bracken , 2005 . From an ordinary perspective , one can view this as an ordinary scenario in restaurants and coffee shops and among coffee drinkers , especially those who consume their coffee in moving vehicles . But this is not the case in the McDonald 's case . The case was anchored on the claim that McDonald 's have been negligent and that their coffee has been extremely hot beyond the normal temperatures of coffee served in other coffee shops and restaurants . According to the article , The Actual Facts About the McDonalds ' Coffee Case McDonalds ' coffee was not only hot , it was scalding - capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin , flesh and muscle

Ms . Liebeck , was at that time 79 years old and ed coffee from the local McDonald 's which in turn served the hot coffee in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window . After receiving the , his grandson allegedly pulled his car forward to give way to other customers and again stopped to allow Ms . Liebeck to add creamer and sugar to her coffee . In to do this , she held the cup with her legs so that she may be able to open the lid and add in the creamer and sugar . However as she removed the lid , the hot content poured to her lap causing the complained damages . This is as opposed to the claim that the car was in motion and the Liebeck was driving the car when the incident happened (The Actual Facts About the McDonald 's case , n .d . With this incident it can be seen that at one point , the Liebeck 's can be said to have been contributors to the accident as what McDonald 's have claimed that Liebeck...