Case Analysis
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Centennial College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
331
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
12
Uploaded by PrivateEchidna7373
To: Stella Liebeck
From:
Date: 2023.11.11
Re: McDonald’s hot coffee case
McDonald’s providing hot coffee at excessive temperatures, led to Stella Liebeck
suffering serious burn injuries. For success in a negligence action, Stella Liebeck needs to
understand four elements of a negligent action:
•
Duty of care. Duty of care means McDonald's had a responsibility to provide coffee at
a reasonable temperature to every customer, not provide scalding hot coffee at 180 to 190
degrees that may harm others.
•
Causation. Stella Liebeck purchased McDonald's hot coffee, she was injured with
third-degree burns by the hot coffee, The plaintiff and defendant's relationship will have
established causation.
•
Breach of duty. Because the coffee was spilt this led to customers suffering severe
burns that McDonald's did not consider prior incidents and industry standards. Before this case,
there were over 700 customers who suffered injuries including burns when they bought hot
coffee.
•
Damage. Stella Liebeck not only suffered significant external damage but also faced
sequelae after being burned. For example, suffering and pain of treatment, high cost of treatment,
and spending time to see a psychologist.
1
Through legal analysis of Stella Liebeck against McDonald's in the negligence action, she
had a reasonable chance of success. I will provide some evidence of the current and prior cases
to the jury. For example, she had a medical certificate for her injury that she suffered third-
degree burns from hot coffee. McDonald's paid settlements when it received some legal action
for hot coffee. McDonald's provides hot coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit which is higher
than other fast-food restaurants. McDonald's admitted that they did not provide warning to every
customer when they buy hot coffee. McDonald's received upwards of 700 reports of injury due to
hot coffee. Through that evidence, it shows McDonald's violated the safety product regulations
and duty. Even if McDonald's had claimed in defense that hot coffee at a high temperature brings
out better taste once the customer arrives at their destination, its products bring the risk of severe
burn, and it does not provide warning labels on their drinks.
In the Legal defenses, there are two defenses such as assumption of risk and contribution
negligence. First, the assumption of risk is that McDonald’s used the situation that Stella knew
the spilling hot coffee had risk to counter their testimony.
Due to the products having extra high
temperatures leading to customer-facing burn risk, the jury would not receive this weak defense.
Second, contributory negligence. McDonald's would claim that Stella Liebeck did not put the hot
coffee on the table, instead, she put it on her knees leading to the occurrence of the burn accident.
Nobody will use the thermometer to check the temperature of hot coffee when they drink it, and
people did not expect the temperature of hot coffee to be so high. Therefore, this defense does
not have substantial weight.
I will advise that McDonald's needs to implement risk or management steps to avoid an
incident, such as the high-temperature product need to provide warning labels, regularly
checking product temperature and supplies, increase in training programs, develop a post-
2
incident procedure outline, and reviewing the industry standards. First, McDonald's needs to
provide extremely hot warning labels on every high-temperature product. Also, it should clearly
caution every purchaser should they choose such a product. The customer will pay attention
when the staff tells them that the product is very hot. Second, it should regularly check the
machine of hot coffee in order to provide safe and reasonable coffee. If the coffee machine has a
problem, the coffee's temperature will be very high. In addition, they should check product
supplies. When a customer has a coffee cup with damage, the coffee would spill onto their skin;
therefore, in order to reduce the risk of accidents, they should develop cups and lids that have a
lower chance of spilling. Third, it should increase some training programs for hot beverages for
staff whether new or existing. In order to prevent staff suffering from burn injuries when they are
serving hot beverages to the customer. The training program will help every staff to understand
how to handle emergency care for burns. Also, it makes for a good addition to post-incident
procedures. For example, when a customer burns themselves from the hot coffee directly, they
should be ready to provide basic medical assistance and/or first aid. The franchisee needs to
report the injury incident to McDonald's head office. Finally, it should make the policy and
product standards an industry requirement, at the same time, it needs to monitor every product’s
safety standard.
To sum up, McDonald’s did not take risk management steps, provide warning labels, and
temperature control to avoid potential harm to every customer; therefore, Stella Liebeck would
be successful in this case and receive compensatory damages and negligence. I consider the
variability and uncertainty of potential defenses, but hot coffee has extremely high temperatures
and the risk of severe burning. These reasons led the legal action to be, very likely, successful.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
DuPlessis, D., O'Byrne, S., King, P., Adams, L., & Enman, S. (n.d.).
Canadian Business and the
Law
. Retrieved from tophat:
https://app.tophat.com/purchased_content/759141/item/245853::712e59fc-bdae-5754-
b02f-21191002d9ed
The McDonalds hot coffee case
. (n.d.). Retrieved from Consumer Attorneys of California:
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
4
Overall Feedback
：
You make some good points but I advised all my students your assignment should be 2000
words. Your analysis is too brief and I comment as follows:
Where is the reference to the negligence test I referred to in the chat? (Figure 11.1)
What about vicarious liability?
The voluntary assumption defence would not succeed because there was evidence she was not
aware of the possibility of third degree burns by excessively hot coffee.
What type of damages are available?
Why not have the server put the milk and sugar in the coffee?
With respect to the allegations as against McDonalds, the corporation/employer would be
vicariously liable for the actions of its employees as the alleged tort was committed in the
“ordinary course or scope of employment” (Chapter 10 of e-text – and print text at p. 245)
The elements of a negligence action as against McDonalds are listed in Figure 11.1 on page 261
of the print text in Chapter 11 under the heading “Establishing a Negligence Action” in the e-
text:
5
Does McDonalds Ltd.(defendant) owe Stella Liebeck (plaintiff) a duty of care? If yes – continue-
Did the defendant breach the standard of care? If yes – continue-
Did the plaintiff sustain damage? If yes continue-
Was the damage caused by the defendant’s breach of the standard of care?
If yes – continue-
Was the damage caused by the defendant too remote? If not -then the plaintiff has proven
negligence
Answers
Yes – Stage 1 - Harm to the plaintiff is reasonably foreseeable in light of over the 700 reports of
injury, serving the coffee at a dangerous temperature (causing 3rd degree burns), and previous
settlements. There is sufficient proximity between the parties in the form of consumer/customer
and restaurant (text pp. 261-263). Stage 2- As this is a personal injury matter and the defendant
was serving an inherently dangerous product there would be no residual policy considerations
that would negate the imposition of a duty of care.
Yes – The standard of a reasonable restaurant would allow for the conclusion that the coffee
“could cause serious burns in seconds.” The judge and jury may hear from experts on this issue
to determine the standard and how it was breached. (text at p. 263-chapter 11).
Yes –injury/damage occurred – The plaintiff suffered third degree burns and required
6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
skin grafts.
Yes - more likely it was the hot temperature that caused the damages – though it would be
arguable that the chain of events (hot coffee, placement of the hot coffee on her lap, followed by
spillage) is what caused damage. However using the “but for” test on page 264 of the print text
or chapter 11 (e-text) the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions. The
case of Resurface Corp. v. Hanke (page 264 of the text or chapter 11) illustrated the issue of
deciding whether the injury occurred because of the defendant or plaintiff’s conduct. In the
Resurface case it was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada that the plaintiff’s own
carelessness caused his injuries and not the product design. Note: the case at hand is to be
decided by a jury and in the Chat I mentioned the unreliability of a jury’s decision making so it is
possible that a jury could conclude that the plaintiff was the cause of her own injury because of
the placement of the coffee on her lap. However- the other evidence indicating previous injuries
and MacDonald’s behaviour would more than likely sway the jury to conclude that it was
MacDonalds that was solely responsible or largely responsible for the damage. This issue can
also be discussed when MacDonalds raises the contributory negligence defence.
No - the damage caused by the defendant was not too remote. The Supreme Court of Canada has
stated that remoteness of damage examines whether the actual harm suffered by the plaintiff was
“too unrelated to the wrongful conduct to hold the defendant fairly liable “and in this way, not
reasonably foreseeable (print text page 265, chapter 11). The satisfaction of this requirement is
not difficult – suffering burns by the provision of dangerously hot coffee is reasonably
foreseeable. There is no evidence that the plaintiff has a prior vulnerability so that the Thin Skull
rule would not be applicable here.
7
As per page 268 of the text, chapter 10 – the law requires the plaintiff to prove each of the above
elements and if it does -the plaintiff has won the negligence action. In this case it appears that the
plaintiff has established or could establish that MacDonalds was negligent.
Though a court may find the defendant to be negligent, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled
to recover all her damages. McDonalds may raise defences against the plaintiff in order to place
some of the responsibility for the loss on that party. There are two possible defences:
Contributory Negligence:
According to chapter 11 of your text -this refers to unreasonable conduct by the plaintiff that
contributed—or partially caused—the injuries that were suffered. Contributory Negligence
recognizes that, in many instances, both the defendant and the plaintiff may have been negligent.
If the plaintiff is found to have been part author of her own misfortune, then, as noted in Chapter
10, provincial legislation will come into play. It provides that responsibility for the tortious event
must be apportioned between or among the respective parties. Through this mechanism, the
plaintiff’s damages award is then reduced in proportion to her own negligence.
In this case the question is - was the plaintiff contributorily negligent for placing the cup
containing a hot liquid between her knees and removing the lid to add cream and sugar? The cup
tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap. In Chapter 11 of the text there is reference
to the Kralik v Mount Seymour Resorts wherein the appeal court concluded that the plaintiff was
50% at fault for failing to take care of his own safety while using a ski lift. Arguably the same
8
scrutiny by a judge or jury could exist here and conclude that the plaintiff is partially at fault for
her behaviour. In the actual case the jury found that McDonalds was 80 percent responsible for
the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup,
the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient.
Voluntary Assumption of Risk
According to chapter 11 of the text - when a judge or jury makes a finding of volenti non fit
injuria or voluntary assumption of risk, it is concluding that the plaintiff consented to accept the
risk inherent in the event that gave rise to the loss. Volenti non fit injuria is therefore a complete
defence to the lawsuit, and the plaintiff will be awarded nothing by a judge even though the
defendant had been negligent.
To succeed on this defence, the defendant must show that the plaintiff—knowing of the virtually
certain risk of harm—released his right to sue for injuries incurred as a result of any negligence
on the defendant’s part. In short, both parties must understand that the defendant has assumed no
legal responsibility to take care of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff does not expect him or her
to. Since this test is not easy to meet, volenti non fit injuria is a very rare defence.
In this case in order for the defence to be successful the defendant would have to prove the
plaintiff knew of the possibility of severe (third degree burns) and she waived any rights against
the defendant – there was no evidence of this. Quite the opposite- as the material states that
McDonalds admitted that its customers were unaware of the risk of serious burns. Though it
9
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
would be arguable that the placing of the cup between her knees was some indication she may
have assumed the risk – the other evidence the jury heard about the defendant’s attitude and
policy would not make the jury sympathetic to this argument.
Conclusion
It appears that the evidence satisfies the requirement that Mcdonalds has committed the tort of
negligence. However it is also likely they are not 100% at fault based on the contributory
negligence committed by Stella Liebecki, Despite a warning on the cup, she placed the cup of
hot liquid between her knees. In the actual case she was deemed 20% responsible.
Damages
According to chapter 10 -the primary goal of a tort remedy is to compensate the victim for loss
caused by the defendant. Generally, this is a monetary judgment. When a person is injured by the
tort of another, his damages are categorized as being either pecuniary (i.e., monetary) or non-
pecuniary. Non-pecuniary damages—sometimes called general damages—are damages that are
awarded to compensate the plaintiff for:
pain and suffering.
loss of enjoyment of life.
loss of life expectancy.
10
Because McDonalds negligence caused the customer to suffer from third degree burns -she has
undoubtedly suffered an amount of general damages. These damages are non-pecuniary in the
sense that they are not out-of-pocket, monetary losses, but they are nonetheless both real and
devastating. The quality of her life has been diminished. A judge or jury will award damages
based on these facts, as well as on expert testimony as to how badly she has been injured. The
more serious and permanent the injury is, the higher the general damages will be. Courts have
developed precedents to assist in this process, and the Supreme Court of Canada has set a clear
upper limit on what can be awarded for general damages.
Punitive damages—also known as exemplary damages—are an exception to the general rule that
damages are intended only to compensate the plaintiff. Their main goal is to punish the
defendant for “outrageous, antisocial, or illegal behaviour” or, less commonly, to prevent the
defendant “from benefitting from the wrong.” The Supreme Court of Canada has noted, punitive
damages “are in the nature of a fine which is meant to act as a deterrent to the defendant and to
others from acting in this manner.” If the judge or jury feels that punitive damages are required
this would be an amount above and beyond general damages. In the actual case almost $3
million was awarded in punitive damages at trial but on appeal these were reduced by 80%.
Risk Management
If a risk management plan exists for McDonalds it should be revisited – in the Chat I mentioned
that I was seeking practical tips from you. Practically speaking they may want to consider:
11
attempting to use a more secure lid;
place the sugar and/or coffee in in the coffee before giving the cup to the customer;
enhance any existing warning on the cup about the need for careful handling;
update their policy on the temperature of the served coffee
Note: I would like to mention that the entire assignment is marked out of 30 – I use to break
down the mark per issue but it seemed that the overall assignment mark was too low based on
that approach. What I have done is provide an overall mark with some comments as to the
weaknesses in your approach (or sometimes strengths) followed by what I consider to be the
model response. This means there will be some points in the model response that you will have
covered but I prefer to provide direct comments on what was lacking. Please take the time to
read the model response so you can appreciate the overall grade assigned. It may be possible that
I did not mention all the oversights in my comments but they will be apparent with the comments
I provide you. I do want to assure you that I do appreciate your argument even if I disagree with
your conclusion. Also keep in mind that this course material and evaluation is not like math
whereby you are awarded a full mark if you advise me that the answer to “What is 1 + 1” is 2. In
this course you are evaluated on the reasons and explanation as to why 1 plus 1 is 2.
Due to this
– there is a lot of discretion available to me in terms of marking. Thanks for your understanding.
12
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help