Reference no: EM133247084

1. Assume that you are the Plaintiff. Make your case proving Defendant's negligence using the facts given

2. Assume that you are the Defendant. Make your case rebutting Plaintiff's case using the facts given. You are trying to show that you, Defendant, were not negligent.

3. Had you heard of this case before reading the posted handout of the case summary? Do you think that the jury's award of punitive damages to Plaintiff was inappropriately high? Why or why not?

4. How did the jury calculate damages? Label and explain each type. Did the information in the posted summary change your opinion? Why or why not?

5. Overall, was the result of the lawsuit fair and just? Would it have been more fair and just if the jury's award had not been altered? Why or why not?

SUMMARY - THE MCDONALD'S CASE

Stella Liebeck, 79, was a passenger in her grandson's car when he stopped at the McDonald's drive-thru window. She ordered coffee with cream and sugar. The cream and sugar were in small packets. Because there was a lid on the cup, her grandson stopped the car while she placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. The sweatpants she was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it to her skin. She suffered third degree burns of the genital area, groin, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks and was forced to spend eight days in the hospital, underwent debridement treatments, and received several skin grafts. McDonald's offered Mrs. Liebeck $800 for her medical bills and pain and suffering after she asked for $12,000. It was found that McDonald's had previously settled several other claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500.000.

Evidence showed that McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns, ranging from mild to third degree. McDonald's officials testified that the company required that its coffee be served at 180-190 degrees at all franchises, which was twenty (20) degrees hotter than any other fast food chain. Coffee served in homes is usually 135-140 degrees. An expert in thermodynamics testified that lowering the temperature of coffee to 160 degrees would make a big difference in the burn potential because it takes less than two to three (2-3) seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about two to seven (2-7) seconds at 180 degrees and twenty (20) seconds at 160 degrees. 

Company representatives stated that McDonald's sold coffee through the drive-thru for people to take to work or home, although they agreed that their own research showed that most customers consumed it while driving. They further noted that they put a "reminder" on the cups that the coffee was hot but did not disagree that "hot" was a relative term. Officials of McDonald's testified it was probably true that most people would not know the severity of the potential burns, but that they had decided not to inform the customers and didn't intend to do so in the future. A human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from McDonald's testified "statistically," the hot-coffee burns were insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee that McDonald's sells annually.

McDonald's claimed that Mrs. Liebeck's injuries were more extensive because she was older and older skin is thinner and more vulnerable to injury. The company also claimed that Mrs. Liebeck was responsible for the extent of the injuries because she did not remove her clothing immediately.

After hearing all the evidence, the jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found that Mrs. Liebeck was 20% at fault. The jury also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, which it determined was equal to two days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial court reduced the punitive award to $480,000. When McDonald's stated that it would appeal the verdict, Mrs. Liebeck settled her case for an undisclosed amount that is likely to be between $300,000 and $400,000.