McDonald’s Restaurants law case

Introduction

The famous 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants law case, popularly known as “the hot coffee lawsuit” sparked a debate in the U.S on product liability. The case resulted from the severe burns Mrs. Liebeck got from her coffee spill. Having bought coffee from McDonald’s, Liebeck told her grandson to stop the car so that she could add sugar to her coffee. She placed the cup on her lap but it got spilled causing a third degree burn to six percent of her body and less serious burn to sixteen percent. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo skin grafting. She also spent the next two years on medication.

Liebeck filed a lawsuit against the fast food restaurant and was awarded $640,000 by the trial judges. The parties however, decided to settle for a confidential amount before an appeal could be decided. Many people saw the case as worthy as many people before had received burns from McDonald’s coffee but not much was done toward it.

Laws and ethical principles violated

The serving of very hot coffee by the McDonalds violates the product liability law (Allee 1984). Coffee at temperatures between 180-190 degrees is well known to burn when spilt. The fast food chain knew this very well and it still continued serving this very hot coffee even after over 700 previous cases of burnt reported to it. This demonstrated very well that the food chain was not ready to take any responsibility for any health effect its product could cause and prevent them earlier by serving coffee at lower temperatures. The company admitted knowing well that such temperatures for coffee could cause scald but still argued that its costumers liked the coffee that hot because they can take it over a long distance on their journey before it cools down. It claimed that such temperatures allowed every costumer to have his or her coffee at her preferred temperature as one will allow it to cool until the right temperatures. However, what would happen in cases it spill before cooling down.

The company broke the ethical principle such as giving someone something that can harm them (Sherrow 2010). Knowing well the temperature of the coffee and possible harm in case of spill, it was an ethical for the company to serve its customers who were on travel such hot coffee. Considering the coffee was to be taken on drive, the chances of spilling were too high. Although Liebeck’s coffee spilt when the car was not moving, what would have been the effect of the coffee if the car was moving? From studies it is proved that coffee between 180-190 degrees case cause third degree burn just between a short time of six to nine seconds.

The main stakeholders and the harm they received

The main stakeholders in the case were Mrs. Liebeck and the McDonalds Restaurants. Involvement of Mrs. Liebeck in the case made her received several harms. Her burns not only made her hospitalized to eight days and receive two years of medication, it caused her lots of money on medication since she underwent skin grafting, lose of income and also emotional distress. McDonalds on the other hand had to pay a lot of money as settlement of the case, payment for cases expenses such as lawyers and also suffered public defamation. It also forced the chain to start serving coffee at lower temperatures that not all costumers liked. The restaurant had to put a lot of effort to rebuild its image after the case and this lead to even more spending on both radio and TV adverts that it originally had budgeted. It also lost some customers who got biased after seeing what a McDonald’s coffee can cause.