Stella Liebeck Case Study

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.
Stella Liebeck was a 79 years old grand-mother who suffered third degree burn in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee on her lap while sitting on the passenger side of her grandson’s car after she purchased a cup of coffee from McDonald drive-through window. She was subsequently hospitalized, while she underwent skin grafting, requiring further treatment for another two years after the burn. Here I present exclusively the research of her story; the incident, pretrial, and the jury’s verdict and why they reach such a unanimous decision.
• What was the basis of her claim

The basis of Stella Liebeck’s claim against McDonald is strict product liability. Wikipedia defines strict product liability as “the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause”. Fortunately enough, Stella Liebeck understood the law and would not be intimidated by any mean or plot by McDonald to refuse accepting liability for her injury. Understandably, it was proven by McDonald research team that serving coffee as hot as that was not something palatable to many costumers even though costumers wanted the coffee hot; some wanted to consume their coffee immediately which makes it impossible to do when as hot as when purchased. Notwithstanding, coffee industry regulation suggest that coffee should not be hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), to avoid severe burn or other related injury. Stella Liebeck,

Moreover, if the alleged tort was negligence, Lau and Johnson stated clearly that “When it happens, and it turns out that the reason was carelessness or a failure to act reasonably, then the tort of negligence may apply”. (2011, p. 125). Again, negligence is not found reasonably with McDonald in this case. Comprehensively, the alleged tort was strict liability. According to Mosby, strict liability is defined as “A case in which negligence does not have to be proven in order to be found legally liable” (2005). In other words, strict liability torts required neither intent nor carefulness. If strict liability applies, it is therefore irrelevant how carelessly , or how carefully the defendant acted, and it does not matter if the defendant took every necessary precaution to avoid harm; if someone is harmed in a situation where strict liability applies, the defendant is obviously liable. This is the exact situation with McDonald who is into business to serve its customer with what they felt was the best product to be consumed during long distance journey to work or wherever. Nonetheless, liability rest on McDonald because harm is cause by it product without any intention, and without any negligence on their service. Ordinarily, McDonald exonerated itself