 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
|
|
Forever me |
| Analysis of Liebeck v. McDonald's Facts- In the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s, Liebeck, a 79 years-old female suffered third degree burns to 6% of her skin as a result of accidentally spilling McDonald’s hot coffee onto her lap. The jury’s initial verdict consists of compensatory damage of $200,000.00 which is reduced by 40,000.00 because it is decided that Liebeck was 20% at fault. The jury also awarded the plaintiff $2,700,000.00 for punitive damages. The judge later reduced the punitive damage to 480,000.00, or three times the compensatory damage on counts of post-verdict investigation. Issue - The jury’s verdict was considerably harsh despite the plaintiff’s severe injury. Much of the money the jury awarded Liebeck was on counts of punitive damage, which implies that McDonald’s actions were reckless, callous, and willfully caused the injury to Liebeck. McDonald’s did testify that they have knowledge that their coffee may cause injury and they do not intend to change it. However this is said on the bases that McDonald’s believe they should produce products of superior quality. McDonald’s also testified that their experts recommended the coffees to be “held at 180-190 Fahrenheit for optimum taste”. McDonald’s did not willfully injure Liebeck; they simply attempted to produce high quality products. Further the product is labeled “Hot Coffee”, and “any reasonable prudent person” would acknowledge that hot coffee may be hot, and to proceed with extra caution. McDonald’s “has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product” by providing a Styrofoam cup and a lid; the cup is comfortable to hold and prevents scalding of hand and the lid prevents the liquid from spilling. Once the lid is removed the product is no longer within its original container of which it is purchased, therefore McDonald’s should be suffer such a heavy punitive damage. One must remember the burden of proof that McDonald’s recklessly and willfully injured Liebeck is on the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff could prove McDonald’s purposely caused such injuries the claim does not stand.
The judge reduced the punitive damage to $480,000.00 because later findings showed McDonald’s has reduced the temperature of its coffee, therefore showing that the company did not intend on causing injuries to its customers. This decision is sound because the original amount was unreasonable. The plaintiff was already awarded for compensatory damage because it was proven that McDonald’s and its product was liable for her injuries. However the $2.7 million punitive damage based on an estimated companywide coffee sales is irrational. Part of the punitive damage was based on the fact that McDonald’s claimed the injuries are statistically insignificant and therefore have no intention of changing the method it prepares coffee. However one must realize that no product is made to be completely safe. McDonald’s hot coffee was “safe for normal handling and consumption” and in this case normal is defined by the general population that consumes the hot coffee. Any product have the potential of causing injuries; the McDonald’s coffee is potentially dangerous but since most people do not get hurt by it, it can be assumed that if handled normally it does not cause injuries. Should a company that produces knives be held liable for injuries caused by the knives? Are they knives defective because they are so sharp? Probably not. Than why should McDonald’s be held liable for punitive damage for damages that was not intentionally caused by the company. Why should McDonald’s be held liable for damages caused by “defective” hot coffee because the coffee was hot and McDonald’s believed in preparing hot coffee hot?
Conclusion - Any reasonable person would be great sorrow for Ms. Liebeck due to her injuries. However Ms. Liebeck is greatly responsible for the injuries. Further more it is obvious that McDonald’s as a company has no intention of causing Ms. Liebeck such injuries. The injuries were result of a terrible accident in which McDonald’s should not be held responsible for. The punitive damage awarded to Ms. Liebeck should be reduced because the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof in proving McDonald’s actions were reckless and intentional.
|