The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case is a famous tort case in the United States in the 1990s. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, was burned by hot coffee she purchased from a drive-thru window of McDonald’s. According to Supreme Court procedures (n.d.), Liebeck filed a lawsuit against the fast food chain, claiming that the coffee was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that McDonald’s was negligent in serving coffee at such a high temperature.
As a member of the jury, I would have decided for Liebeck. The elements of negligence were present in this case. Firstly, McDonald’s had a duty to serve coffee in a manner that was safe for its customers. Secondly, McDonald’s breached this duty by serving excessively hot coffee and not being fit for immediate consumption. Thirdly, Liebeck suffered injury as a result of this breach of duty. Finally, there was a direct causal connection between McDonald’s negligence and Liebeck’s injury. According to the American Bar Association, “Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care that results in harm to another party.” (ABA, n.d.). In this case, McDonald’s failed to use reasonable care by serving excessively hot coffee and was not fit for immediate consumption. This failure harmed Liebeck, who suffered serious burns from the coffee. Furthermore, McDonald’s was aware of the danger posed by serving hot coffee, as it had received numerous complaints from customers whose coffee had burned in the past. Despite this knowledge, McDonald’s continued to serve coffee at excessively high temperatures, indicating a reckless disregard for the safety of its customers.
In conclusion, after considering the facts and evidence presented in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, it is clear that McDonald’s was negligent in their actions. The high temperature of the coffee, combined with the chain’s knowledge of previous burn incidents and their failure to act, all indicate a disregard for the safety of their customers. As a jury member, I would have sided with Liebeck and awarded her damages to compensate for her injuries and losses. This ruling would serve as a message to businesses that they have a responsibility to take reasonable care in their operations and protect their customers’ well-being.
References
ABA. (n.d.). Negligence. American Bar Association. Web.
Supreme Court procedures. (n.d.). United States Courts. Web.