Case Study Of Stella Liebeck's Case

Stella Liebeck’s Case

Dana Hoyle

University of the People

On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through the pants that she was wearing. Upon arriving at the hospital she was informed by the doctors that she suffered third degree on six percent of her skin. Liebeck suffered tremendously as a result of the burn. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo surgery. Apart from that she was somewhat disabled for two years. Liebeck made attempts to settle with McDonald, she wanted them to be accountable for the injury she suffered. She wanted them to pay for the incurred expenses as well as the expense she anticipated in the future. McDonald on the other hand agreed to pay $800.00 but Liebeck was asking for $20.000. This case wasn’t settled using ADR methods so it became a trial (Wiki, n.d).

What was the basis of her claim against McDonald's?

Liebeck basis for her claim was that the served her coffee that was

It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee