Stella Liebeck VS Mcdonald\'S Restaurant PDF

Preview

Summary

discuss the story of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s, in which she sued McDonald’s for the injuries she suffered after buying coffee from a McDonald’s restaurant. We will also learn from this story that the responsibilities of companies go far beyond providing products and/or services to customers....

Description

Introduction The case of Stella Liebeck and McDonald is still one of the interesting cases where companies and individuals can learn from. From this story, companies can learn that when individuals purchase goods, their responsibility to customers who accidentally purchase goods and/or services does not end, but this is far from the case. Although individuals can know that if they know that products and/or services have caused harm in any way, they can seek compensation for the harm suffered or the damage caused. This article will discuss the story of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s, in which she sued McDonald’s for the injuries she suffered after buying coffee from a McDonald’s restaurant.

We will also learn from this story that the

responsibilities of companies go far beyond providing products and/or services to customers. A 79-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee from the window of a local McDonald’s restaurant, which cost her 49 cents on February 27, 1992 One kind. ). Her grandson drove the car, then parked the car and asked her grandmother to add cream and sugar to the coffee. Since her car (Ford Probe 1989) did not have a cup holder, she had to place the coffee cup between her legs to hold it in order to take out the lid. It was during this process that “she spilled the whole cup of coffee on her lap” (Wikipedia, n.d Para. 4). That day, Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, able to absorb hot coffee more quickly, and "put the coffee close to her skin, burning her thighs, buttocks and groin" (Wikipedia, n.d Para.4). Because of this incident, Liebeck was admitted to the hospital with a third degree burn confirmed by the doctor, and she stayed in the hospital for another eight days. Due to the extent of the burn, she had to undergo a skin transplant. The medical diagnosis indicated that she “suffered third-degree burns on 6% of the skin and less burns on 16% of the skin” (Wikipedia, n.d, Para. 5). When she left the hospital, she

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurant

needed someone to take care of her because she was unable to perform normal daily tasks. This incident also permanently disfigured her, and never thought of it after buying a cup of coffee. What happened now, what happened, whose fault was it, who should pay for her hospitalization and all other expenses incurred during this period?

McDonald’s said that they were not

responsible for the misfortune that happened to Liebeck, and Liebeck insisted on his position and generously said that McDonald’s was responsible for what happened to her, so they had to pay the hospital bills that happened to her. In the past few days, the daughter did not go to work to take care of her. When she approached McDonald’s, McDonald’s was only willing to pay her $800, but she refused the small amount because it could not even cover her medical expenses. When she felt that McDonald's was unwilling to increase the offer, she hired lawyer Reed Morgan. Mr. Morgan contacted McDonald's on this matter. They went through a mediation process and settled out of court. Then, the mediator recommended that McDonald's compensate Liebeck, and McDonald's rejected the mediator's suggestion. It was from here that the case was submitted to the jury to determine whether McDonald's made a mistake, and whether it made a mistake. They should compensate Stella Liebeck for the losses and injuries suffered. Stella Liebeck argued through her crust that the coffee served by McDonald's is very hot and that it could cause serious injuries compared to any other coffee served in the area. "Our position is that the product is unreasonably dangerous and the temperature should be lowered" (Burtka, n.d, Para. 7). Mr. Reed Morgan investigated the temperature of coffee provided by other competitors in the region and concluded that the coffee served by McDonald's customers was very hot. On this basis, they believe that the burn was caused by coffee, not necessarily the accident itself. The temperature of coffee provided by McDonald's is 82 to 88 degrees Celsius, while the temperature of coffee provided by other suppliers is 60 degrees Celsius. Therefore,

2

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurant

Mr. Morgan believes that his clients are suffering due to the problems caused by McDonald's and are seeking compensation. Based on my understanding of this issue, I believe that this infringement of McDonald's is negligent, and to a certain extent, Stella Liebeck is also responsible. Lau and Johnson (2011) defined negligence as "violating the obligation of all persons under the national tort law, that is, taking reasonable actions and giving reasonable care in dealings and interactions with others" (p. 125). When the court heard the plaintiff and defendant, it has determined that McDonald’s has received more than 700 complaints indicating that their coffee harmed people including children. Despite this information, McDonald's still requires its franchisees to hold a coffee temperature of 82-88 degrees Celsius, which is very hot compared to the required temperature of 60 degrees Celsius. In this case, despite all the signs that McDonald's coffee poses a threat to society, McDonald's behavior is negligent. This means that McDonald's did not perform their duties, so they are responsible for the injuries suffered by Stella Liebeck. If McDonald’s reduces the temperature of their coffee to the recommended 60 degrees Celsius, which all other competitors in the region are using, then Stella Liebeck would not suffer this kind of burn. According to medical experts, coffee at 88 degrees Celsius may cause third-degree burns in three seconds, which is not enough for Liebeck to wipe time off his knees.

On the other hand, if the

temperature of the coffee is 60 degrees Celsius, a person will suffer a burn of this degree for 15 seconds. In other words, Liebeck could have used an extra twelve seconds to wipe the coffee off his knees. For this reason, McDonald's failed to fulfill its duty to protect customers from foreseeable dangers. It was also found that the label used by McDonald’s as a coffee cup warning was not clear enough to be recognized, nor did it indicate how hot and dangerous the contents of the 3

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurant

coffee cup were. In short, McDonald's did take responsibility in this situation. To some extent, Liebeck is also responsible for everything that happened to her. First of all, we all know that the coffee provided by a restaurant is very hot, and the cups they use are not strong enough to be placed between the knees, because any slight movement of the knees will spill the coffee on her knees. Despite common sense, she still supports the cup of hot coffee with her legs. This idea is irresponsible, so to some extent, she should be responsible for what happened to her. I think it is unreasonable that any hot drink purchased from a restaurant may cause you a third-degree burn. No one will buy for the purpose of burning, but individuals should be aware that if you are not careful, the hot substance will burn people. This is why individuals need to be extra careful when handling high-temperature materials. Based on the information provided by the plaintiff and the infringer, the court held that the infringer (McDonald's) was responsible for the error, and therefore, they must compensate Stella Liebeck for the injuries suffered. I think that the jury reached this verdict after looking at all the facts stated and knew that McDonald’s had enough time to correct the claims made by the first 700 people, but this is not the case. This was then used as a measure to stop them from supplying unreasonable hot coffee, thereby preventing other injuries in the future. Therefore, this punishment is used to prevent McDonald’s from committing another crime of the same nature. In short, we can learn a lot from Liebeck's case against McDonald's committing another crime of the same nature. In short, we can learn a lot from Liebeck's case against McDonald's.

4

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurant

Conclusion By studying this story, we can understand that every company has a responsibility to ensure that the services provided to customers will not cause them any harm. Although this case is the first time, it makes people realize that if they believe that the company is responsible for any pain in the use of the product, they can seek legal remedy. However, it should be noted that the plaintiffs must prove to the court that they did not have any fault in the incident.

5

Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurant

Reference Burtka, A.T. (n.a.). Liebeck vs. McDonald's: The Hot Coffee Case. Retrieved from: https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/hl=en-ZA Lau, T. & Johnson, L. (2011). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (Vol. 1). Flat World Knowledge. Retrieved from: http://my.uopeople.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=66563. Wikipedia.

(n.a).

Liebeck

vs.

McDonald's

Restaurant.

Retrieved

from:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_vs_McDonald %2527s_Restaurants&hl=en.ZA

6...