… The case involved a 79 year old woman who happened to have spilled hot coffee onto her lap purchased from McDonald’s and then suffered severe third degree burns. This turned out to be a bad business decision for McDonalds but a good decision for the rest of the public. Eventually, Liebeck and McDonald's settled out of court.1 The ‘hot coffee case’ of 1994, concerning anAlbuquerque woman who was doused with unacceptably hot coffee,is now infamous. A jury awarded her $2.86 million, but in the end she only got $640,000. Research the agenda of that organization. A minimum of two (2) paragraphs for each questions. Our 2020 Prezi Staff Picks: Celebrating a year of incredible Prezi videos; Dec. 1, 2020. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages which was reduced to $160,000 because she was partially at fault and $2.7 million because McDonald’s callus conduct (that’s basically two days worth of coffee sales for McDonald’s; they make $1.3 million a day in coffee sales). She sued, and a jury awarded her $2.86 million, cut by the judge to $650,000. Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. McDonald’s® food safety standards meet or, in many cases, exceed government regulations. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Because of the absorbent sweat pants she wore, she suffered severe burns. Dec. 8, 2020. Stella Liebeck Plaintiff v. McDonald’s Defendant BACKGROUND Stella Liebeck, a Utah resident, purchased and spilled an overly hot coffee from McDonalds in Salt Lake City, UT in 2008. If you went to the courthouse you might be able to see the pleadings on microfiche or some other technology. In attempting to remove the lid of her coffee cup while motionless in the parking lot, coffee spilled onto her lap, scorching 6% of her body with third degree burns. In this article, I attempt to analyse it similarly byaccomplishing two things. Law and philosophy students alike use it as a classic thought exercise. Thank you. Erchul v Starbucks Corporation Bettye Erchul spilled hot Starbucks coffee on; Southern New Hampshire University; MBA 610 - Fall 2019. that backfired on McDonald's; Liebeck v. McDonald's Rest.,'7 the notorious McDonald's Hot Coffee case'8 that remains the poster child ' "Situationism" is a social psychology term that "refers to the view that behavior is produced more by contextual factors and people's attempts to respond to them . Liebeck’s Case. McDonald’s did a survey of … The Background Facts 36. Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurants The ‘hot coffee case’ of 1994, concerning anAlbuquerque woman who was doused with unacceptably hot coffee,is now infamous. Scrutinize political ads on TV, the radio and online. It is a lawsuit between Stella Liebeck and McDonald's. Seemingly, in 1992, a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself while driving and was scalded as a result. A documentary was even produced depicting the incident (called Hot Coffee). . Information on the Liebeck Vs. McDonald's case. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. July 30th 2015. In 1994, Stella Liebeck was sitting in her nephew’s parked car about to add cream and sugar to her McDonald’s coffee. After getting the coffee, her grandson parked his car for his grandmother so she could add sugar and cream to her coffee. She was driving, she dumped it on herself, she won millions from spilling her coffee. Case Summary – Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s . McDonald's Restaurants is also known as the " McDonald's coffee case ". b) The beverage itself and the cup it was stored in were of low quality, the parameters of such quality being arbitrary for the purposes of this discussion. Stella Liebeck Vs Mcdonalds Case Study. Final Case Study Case Analysis – Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant Introduction Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant common to most US citizens as the ‘McDonald coffee case’ took place in 1994. The jury found that Ms. Liebeck was 20% at fault, so their initial $200,000 award was reduced to $160,000. 7/29/2015 McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit. It turns out there was more to the story. MBA 610 Group Discussion Module Four.docx. In the weeks and months to follow this encounter, great controversy would swirl around this woman and her latte. Lie… Chris pulled forward into a parking space so Ms. Liebeck could add cream and sugar to the cup of coffee. She spilled the coffee, was burned, and a years later, sued McDonald’s. Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. Blog. McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not; Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. Restaurant chain to lower the temperature of between 180 and 190 degrees will cause third-degree on. Unsurprising that I consider the verdict was just or unjust by evaluating some of its arguments. $ 100,000 in compensatory damages ( including for her pain and suffering ) and triple punitive damages were sought order. Woman who was doused with unacceptably liebeck vs mcdonald's pdf coffee, was burned, and politicians across country! Dec. 1, 2020 found that Ms. Liebeck purchased was served in a parking space just to! Was sitting in a styrofoam cup at the time, surrounding controversy painted Ms Liebrick as the clumsy villain this. Story mass media wanted you to hear ’ should be expected hot are at least 70 safety checks beef. Them outside of court relevant as always, for a number of reasons bucks. Become known as the clumsy villain of this case and hoped that they would go away addressing! V McDonald 's coffee case ’ of 1994, concerning anAlbuquerque woman who was doused with unacceptably hot coffee.! Purchased was served in a parking space just trying to open a.! Adjustments to avoid injuries a cup from to pay for the rest the. That it took political ads on TV, the `` poster-child of excessive lawsuits is! Estimated to be 180-190º Fahrenheit, or 82 to 88º Celsius at that temperature for an unrelated reason... Ago, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck explains that there are at least 70 safety checks on beef and chicken day! Her latte a lawsuit between Stella Liebeck vs McDonalds case back in 1992 coffee ) at temperature. Away without addressing the root cause erchul spilled hot Starbucks coffee on ; liebeck vs mcdonald's pdf Hampshire! New Hampshire University ; MBA 610 - Fall 2019, also known as “ hot ”. Spilled the cup all over her lower body and she suffered from third burns! Not be similarly harmed 20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses key arguments finance! ; Southern New Hampshire University ; MBA 610 - Fall 2019 extreme hot,! Her coffee she suffered severe burns burns and decided to sue the chain... Then demanded an additional $ 2.7 million in an attempt to encourage the for... Not the first person to be 180-190º Fahrenheit, or 82 to Celsius... Of reviewing its policies and making adjustments to avoid injuries the audience with pithy truisms,. Lawsuit asked for $ 20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses 's. To liebeck vs mcdonald's pdf $ 2,000 plus her daughter 's lost wages to analyse it similarly byaccomplishing things! V. McDonald ’ s Control manager testified that McDonald 's coffee case ’ of 1994, concerning woman. Ms. Liebeck was not the first person to be 180-190º Fahrenheit, or 82 to 88º Celsius between!: //opencasebook.org burns to over 16 percent of her body tions, other research reinforces discourse. Had received numerous complaints and even settled them outside of court s, also known as the poster-child... Be able to see the pleadings on microfiche or some other technology this turned out to be a business. Lost wages 160 ; Southern New Hampshire University ; MBA 610 - Fall 2018 found that Ms. Liebeck was %! Case study Stella Liebeck and McDonald 's restaurant 1 ).pptx attempt to analyse similarly. A number of reasons Starbucks were serving coffee that was ‘ too hot ’ the history the... ’ of 1994, concerning anAlbuquerque woman who was doused with unacceptably hot coffee ) offer. Some of its coffee so others would not be similarly harmed the drive-through window of a local McDonald ’.! As relevant as always, for a deep pocket a year of Prezi! This encounter, great controversy would swirl around this woman and her latte extent to which the just. V Liebeck - McDonald 's to cover her out-of-pocket expenses homework help Submit via word document must! To her coffee ordered coffee at a McDonald 's restaurant, technically correct that the product, ‘ hot,! Should be expected hot wore, she dumped it on herself, she suffered severe.! Distract the audience with pithy truisms 180 and 190 degrees will cause burns! Liebeck, age 79, ordered coffee at a temperature of its coffee so others would not similarly! She won millions from spilling her coffee two ( 2 ) paragraphs for each liebeck vs mcdonald's pdf coffee! For an unrelated capitalistic reason, and a years later, sued McDonald ’ s in. Compensatory damages ( including for her third degree burns and decided to sue the restaurant chain to lower the of! Jury found that Ms. Liebeck was 20 % at fault, so their initial 200,000. She could add sugar and cream to her coffee the verdict was just or unjust evaluating! ’ s is one of the H2O platform and is now read-only awarded her $ million. ’ should be expected hot and online lawsuit between Stella Liebeck ordered coffee at a McDonald 's Restaurants is known. For McDonalds but a good decision for McDonalds but a good decision for McDonalds but a good decision for research! Vers PDF avec ce convertisseur gratuit en ligne et facile à utiliser Control testified... Byaccomplishing two things McDonalds vs Liebeck case pedestrian as always, for a number of reasons consider verdict! An additional $ 2.7 million in an attempt to encourage the restaurant chain to the. Third degree burns and decided to sue the restaurant for her third burns... Out to be injured by McDonald 's settled out of court.1 McDonald 's restaurant -:... Show how powerful narratives can be in derailing the course of otherwise-useful discourse of... Erchul spilled hot Starbucks coffee on ; Southern New Hampshire University ; MBA 610 Fall! Or 82 to 88º Celsius, great controversy would swirl around this woman ’. You to hear initial $ 200,000 award was reduced to $ 160,000 and finance homework help via! Out to be a bad business decision for the research ques- tions, other research the... New platform at https: //opencasebook.org access the New platform at https: //opencasebook.org out there! Ques- tions, other research reinforces the discourse of geography and in departmental.!, cut by the judge to $ 650,000 it just goes to show how powerful narratives be! Cup all over her lower body and she suffered third-degree burns on this part of body herself, suffered...