Analysis of Tort Law Principles: The McDonald's Coffee Burn Case Study

This case study examines the tort law case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, focusing on the incident where Liebeck suffered third-degree burns from spilled coffee. The case details the facts, including Liebeck's injuries, her request for medical expense reimbursement, and McDonald's refusal. The analysis covers the specific disagreements between the parties, Liebeck's claims of defective coffee preparation and lack of warning, and McDonald's defense. The court's ruling, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, is reviewed, along with the subsequent reduction in the amount and the eventual settlement. The study concludes by assessing the court's decision, considering the evidence presented and the application of tort law principles, particularly regarding negligence and product liability. The absence of a dissenting opinion and the overall fairness of the court's judgment are also discussed, supported by references to legal sources.

Running Head: TORT LAW 0
tort law
Based on case study
MAY 4, 2018

TORT LAW 1
Parties to the court
Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 1994 Extra LEXIS 23 (Bernalillo County, N.M.
Dist. Ct. 1994), 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994).
Facts of the case
In this case, Lieback dropped McDonald’s cup of coffee in her lap. It caused third
degree burn to her legs (Howells, & Weatherill, 2017). Liebeck made a request to
McDonald’s restaurant to pay medical expenses but McDonald’s refused to pay. On the
refusal, Liebeck filed a lawsuit in court. During the proceedings, it was found that there were
number of grievances against McDonalds that coffee had caused burns to customers.
Though, temperature of coffee is specified in restaurant’s operational manual. The
panel of judges granted Liebeck compensatory damages of $200000 and punitive charges of
$ 2.7 million. McDonalds tried to settle the matter with Liebeck but Liebeck did not agree to
settle. In due course, judge reduced the amount by $ 640000 and at last case was appealed by
McDonalds.
Specific Disagreement
In the given case, there was specific disagreement between the parties. Liebeck
suspected that coffee was prepared badly due to heat and served in cup which was designed
defectively. Furthermore Liebeck said that cup had no warning regarding caution.
McDonalds denied these facts in some of its pleading that potable coffee is of hot nature and
all other restaurant serve excessively hot coffee. Further McDonalds argued that every year
billion cups of coffee have been consumed and no incident happened in this regard. And

TORT LAW 2
Liebeck’s injuries were severe. Her third degree burns required skin graft (Shelley, 2017).
Liebeck requested McDonalds to pay her medical expenses but it was denied by McDonalds.
Ruling of court
After the hearings, Court found Liebeck sympathetic and McDonalds inadequately
concerned. Jury awarded plaintiff $ 200,000 as compensatory damages to cover medical
expenses and $ 2.7 million in punitive damages. Further court reduced the amount by $
640,000. McDonalds made appeal but plaintiff and defendant made settlement for a
confidential amount before deciding appeal.
Existence of Dissenting Opinion
In the above discussed case, there was no dissenting opinion. Because all the judges
of panel had same opinion on this case after hearing of arguments, reviewing documents and
evidences. They did not disagree with each other on the final decision.
Review of court’s decision
In the given case, court had given right decision because when this case was present
to the court, the panel of judges found that Stella Liebeck had suffered third degree burns and
got skin graft. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days and medical expenses were claimed by
her. But McDonalds denied paying. After determining these facts court found Liebeck
sympathetic and awarded her compensative damages of $ 200000 and the punitive damages
of $ 2.7 million. Later this amount was reduced by $ 640000 because judges found that
Liebeck was 20% liable for her injury because of not aware about the warning on the cup of
coffee and McDonald was 80% liable for this all incident. As court heard arguments and
considered facts of both the party, it arrived at correct decision.

TORT LAW 3
Reference
Howells, G., & Weatherill, S. (2017). Consumer Protection Law. California:
Routledge.
Shelley, J. (2017). Food as a Dangerous Product: The Promise of Private Law for
Public Health (Doctoral dissertation). Oxford: Oxford University Press.