The Hot Coffee case, which involves Stella Liebeck and McDonald's, has become important in discussions surrounding tort reform and the American legal system. Liebeck's lawsuit, which resulted in a multi-million-dollar verdict, has caused debates about the fairness of punitive damages, the role of the government in limiting compensation, and the broader implications for civil justice. In the big picture, it is not okay for people to take advantage of the system so that they can benefit from the compensation. But it is also important for people to have justice. A big settlement can be seen as a bit foolish, but it can also show the importance of the wrongful termination of a corporation or business. In 1992, a 79-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck suffered from severe burns when she spilled hot coffee on herself while in her parked car. Liebeck's injuries were serious, requiring skin grafts. This resulted in a hefty amount of medical expenses. Liebeck wanted McDonald’s to pay for her $20,000 medical bills, but they refused to give her anything more than $800. This resulted in the case going to trial. She ended up …show more content…
This lawsuit highlighted the potential dangers of corporate negligence and the need for companies to prioritize consumer safety over profit. The hot coffee case was a wake-up call for businesses across various industries to ensure compliance with industry standards. Additionally, the media surrounding the case started many discussions about personal responsibility, liability, and the role of the legal system in addressing these types of scenarios. As a result, the Hot Coffee case not only influenced tort reform discussions but also culturally shifted the importance of holding corporations more accountable for their actions. The high punitive damages awarded by the jury were a message to McDonald's about the importance of consumer safety and the consequences of negligence (Sebok,
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
In the case of Liebeck versus McDonald’s, I definitely would have sided with McDonald’s. Despite the court’s decision, I disagree with the decision to reward Stella Liebeck financially. I stand by my decision for the reasons that coffee is meant to be served hot, Liebeck was extremely thin-skinned, and a company should not be held responsible for the misuse of their product even if it was unintentional. Our society is one that has almost become dependent on law suits, cases like Liebeck’s should not have been entertained in court. In my opinion, the judicial system failed
In conclusion, finding out the truth, the facts, and the goal of justice should be the main purpose of any civil case. Sadly, the judicial process gets in the way. The legal system becomes unjust and in some cases, justice is never served. Seeing the story unfold and reading about the struggle between wealth and power and justice is exciting, yet saddening. The book matters and should be read by all, from people who are studying the legal system to people who are not. It is an emotional and engaging book. It can’t be forgotten. One man can make the biggest difference and finding the truth is much more fulfilling than any riches.
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
Most people will not recognize the name Stella Liebeck but say the words “hot coffee lawsuit” and recognition will be instant. The story is almost so well known that it has almost passed into the realm of urban legend or myth. And in the broad strokes it has become a bit of a myth. An old woman drives through a McDonald’s drive through, orders a cup of coffee and then promptly and recklessly spills the beverage all over her legs. Then in search of an easy payday she sues the restaurant for millions of dollars, ultimately walking away a millionaire with no more damage than a ruined pair of sweatpants. The story has been held up as a parable for what is wrong with America today. The well-worn story can be held up to serve as a totem pole for any number of issues. People don’t want to work for money anymore, just look at that hot coffee lady. People don’t want to take responsibility for their actions, just look at that hot coffee lady. People are idiots, look at that coffee lady. As it turns out, the “coffee lady” is a good story for examining the world we live in today, but not for the reasons that might be expected.
I am going to write this paper on tort reform, what it is and its overarching role in the documentary. Tort Reform is defined as “proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring litigation or to reduce damages they can receive”. Another theme that I believe ties in really well with the idea of tort reform is the idea of how big of an influence money has in politics. Many people would agree that there are a lot of companies that would want tort reform so they don’t have to worry about losing millions of dollars.
Margaret Fuller was one of the most influential woman of her time. She was a very intelligent woman that had concurred three languages by the age of thirteen. She used her knowledge to open the eyes of many people. She was a true Transcendentalist. She was very vocal about her views on gender roles of the nineteenth century even though they were not considered traditional. She challenged the conventional gender roles of the men and women. She was not afraid to tell women to fight for their natural rights. Her audience was composed of both men and women. She makes sure to point out that when she speaks of men, she is referring to both men and women. One of her greatest literature written was The Great Lawsuit. It was
1) Starbucks’ legal case strategy legal maneuvering cannot be considered as ethical. The company tried to use its power in order to weaken the small company that already was much weaker. It is obvious that Black Bear had much less finances than the Starbucks did, and that is why legal procedures were exhausting the small company financially. The maneuvering, undertaken by Starbucks, had the aim to destroy the Black Bear Company, and thus to reach its target in the legal proceedings.
Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
When a business fails to address its employees actions and as a result, any injury/damage occurs to another holds the business liable without having any explicit involvement. The “Rose v Plenty” case previously held Mr Plenty guilty of negligence of duty of care and caused Rose’s injury. But when appealed, the court also held the employer, the “Co-operative Retail Services Ltd’ as responsible for not acting under vicarious liability as per the company’s scope of employment that Mr Plenty enjoyed. Similarly, in “Mattis v Pollock’ case, Mr Pollock employed Cranston as bouncer who was intimidating to Pollock’s customers and was motivated to act violently.
Starbucks takes the standards of business conduct very seriously. Starbucks “support(s) the global business ethics policy and provide(s) an overview of some of the legal and ethical standards” (Starbucks Coffee) around the world and in every store they serve their customers. Another important factor is that Sta...
The law of tort covers many areas in business which includes liability to other parties other than the main occupants of a business premises as an example or those injured by a business’ employees in the course of work. In order to get compensation the claims can have different perspectives and can also be argued in different ways. As a tort, the injury in the Alice versus University Heights Pizza and Donald is based on intrusion on health and safety (injury) caused by reckless driving. • What is University Height's best argument that it is not liable to Alice?
McDonalds over the years has defended its unethical practices and those of their franchisees, they have been slapped with numerous lawsuits for various violations w...
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.