Mcdonald's Case Of Stella Liebeck And The Chain Food Restaurant Mcdonalds

1567 Words7 Pages
An unfortunate dispute arose between an old lady named Stella Liebeck and the chain food restaurant McDonald in 1992 when this old lady received an extensive burn from coffee supplied by McDonald. Differentiating its coffee with an excessively high hotness, Stella Liebeck bought a cup of this coffee and it was served why she was sitting in the passenger’s seat of her grandson’s car. It resulted into litigation because when this lady tried to add cream and sugar into the coffee, it spilled on her, and with it extremely hot temperature, Stella Liebeck suffered tremendous injury and was hospitalized for some time. This paper analysis the basis of Stella Liebeck’s claim against McDonald, discusses whether the tort was intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Also discuss is why Ms Liebeck’s lawyer believe that McDonald’s was liable to Ms Liebeck, whether it is reasonable for a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give a third degree burns, how the jury decide the case, and the reason the jury decided the way they did.
What was the basis of her claim against McDonald's?
The case brought against McDonald by Stella Liebeck was on the ground that the coffee was unacceptably hot and the chain restaurant understood the danger posed by a liquid of such high temperature. In addition,
…show more content…
Intentional torts result when the tortfeasor act intentionally with the intend that the consequences of his/her action would be harmful. Negligent torts result when the breach of the duty of all persons, as established by start tort law, to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others occurs. Strict liability tort is without any fault, but causes danger or serious harm to the society or person involved (Lau, T. & Johnson, L.

More about Mcdonald's Case Of Stella Liebeck And The Chain Food Restaurant Mcdonalds

Open Document