Discuss Torts in reference to the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case (link is in this Unit), as follows: Attached is Part I and II
- Do you agree or disagree with the Court’s decision in the Case?
I do not disagree with the punitive damages awarded in this case because the coffee was to hot to even drink which is the sole purpose
- Explain why or why not by making reference to how Negligence applies in this Case.
Many have said that the plaintiff was at fault because she spilled the coffee when she tried to put creamer in it and that was all her fault. The problem with that theory is that the coffee was so hot that it caused 3rd degree burns which means the coffee was to hot to drink. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases (McKinney, 2022).
3. Discuss the elements needed to prove a negligence case and talk about how Mrs. Liebeck did or did not prove those elements in your opinion.
Duty: McDonald had a responsibility to ensure the temperature of the coffee was not to hot to drink.
Breach: serving coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns
Cause in fact: The temperature of the coffee was directly related to the type of burns.
Proximate cause: Purchasing coffee from Mcdonalds at the temperatures that it was served has caused burns in several customers
Harm: Injuries were associated with where the coffee spilled.
McKinney, C. (2022, February 13). Tort reform is a lie: Hot coffee still being used to mislead. The McKinney Law Firm, P.C. Retrieved April 20, 2022, from https://www.themckinneylawfirm.com/texasemploymentlawblog/2017/9/20/tort-reform-is-a-lie-hot-coffee-still-being-used-to-mislead