Introduction
In 1992, the story of Stella Liebeck, who spilled McDonald’s coffee on herself, received burns, and sued the company a year later, became a sensation. The most significant thing about the case concerned the amount of reward — almost three million dollars. Such a situation seemed absurd for most people. The situation became the subject of anecdotes, comedian shows, and everyday jokes. Although many people considered the case as unreasonable, the outcome of the coffee case was fair because of the severe damage to the health of Stella Liebeck.
Summary of the case
As it is described in the New York Times, the story began in 1992, when a 79-year-old woman, Stella Liebeck, ordered a coffee at a drive-through at McDonald’s in New Mexico. As far as there was no place to put the coffee, the women put it between her knees. Unfortunately, she spilled coffee and received burns. She was delivered to the emergency and doctors reported that sixteen percent of Liebeck’s skin was damaged. Six percent of all injuries were identified as third-degree.
A year later, the old woman decided to sue the company for damages. Her primary aim was to make McDonald’s change the standards of serving coffee and receive compensation for at least medicines. The trial decided to award Liebeck, and the amount of compensation comprised almost two hundred thousand dollars. Besides, she received nearly three million dollars in punitive damages.
Arguments for the fairness of outcome
According to the U.S. laws and legal system, every person should be protected adequately. Thus, the U.S. courts favor the so-called “tort claims”. Thus, every resident who suffered from particular damages has the right to protect his or her individuality by making a claim. The second fact concerns the health condition of the victim. According to Hot Coffee, three-degree burns are regarded as the most dangerous type. They do not heal without medical treatment. The photos of Liebeck’s damaged skin justified the terrible condition of her health.
Counterarguments and rebuttal
The primary argument against such a decision referred to the fact that most people considered such an outcome to be abnormal. Second, the issues related to the punitive damages arose. Some individuals used lawsuits as the means of the accomplishment of their personal goals. According to the article “Law v Common Case” published in The Economist, “the direct costs of lawsuits are only one of the drawbacks of an over-legalistic society”. The attempts to settle this issue mostly referred to the legal limitations of the punitive damages according to “Tort on stilts” in The Economist.
Although there are cases when the right for tort claims gives advantages to people with dishonest purposes, the case with McDonald’s hot coffee does not belong to this group. Several additional factors prove the seriousness and deliberateness of the outcome. First, McDonald’s company served coffee that was scalding and could cause severe damages in fifteen seconds in case of the spill. Second, the statistics showed that not only adults but also children and infants were burned (Hot Coffee). Third, punitive damages were decreased for Stella Liebeck by the court though it was not mentioned in any media.
Conclusion
The outcome of the case with McDonald’s hot coffee was fair as far as it presented the ability of the U.S. law to protect its residents. Besides, it resulted in making McDonald’s services safer for many people.
Works Cited
FAQ about the McDonalds Coffee Case. n.d. Web.
Stout, Hilary. Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore. 2013. Web.
Tort of Stilts. 2001. Web.
Law v Common Sense. 2009. Web.