gbl hw 4

.doc

School

Michigan State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

385

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

doc

Pages

3

Uploaded by SuperJellyfish4123 on coursehero.com

Homework 4 Questions Upon reading the McDonald’s case summary below, please answer all of the following questions: 1. Assume that you are the Plaintiff. Make your case proving Defendant’s negligence using the facts given. To start, the Plaintiff could start with mentioning the coffee temperature. The temperatures of this coffee shop are much higher than other places, which can prove to be more dangerous. There were also many issues in the past with this coffee shop and burns that people have gotten due to the coffee. It seems with that, that the shop did nothing to fix this issue over time. Another thing could be mentioning that while it is known that the coffee will be hot, there was no info on potential burns and the severity that they could be. Lastly, McDonald offered a small amount to go towards covering her medical bill. This shows that he did not necessarily pay attention to how bad the burns were, and that he did not show effort into caring about this situation. 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. There are a few things that the Defendant could say for rebutting the Plaintiff’s case. One thing would be to explain the standard for their specific coffee shops. The coffee temperatures were in their standard, and customers should be aware of the risk that hot beverages can have. Another thing could be that Mrs. Liebeck had not immediately changed her clothes after the hot coffee spilled on her, which could push some of the issue back onto her. One more thing could be that she is older. He could argue that elderly people are more vulnerable to injuries. 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? No, I did not hear of this case before reading it. Originally, I felt that the punitive damages to the Plaintiff were high. $2.7 million is a lot of money, even though McDonalds actions were at fault. I think that the ending compromise by reducing the payment to $480,000 were more appropriate. 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? The jury calculated damages with compensation and punitive damages. Originally, the jury had given $200,000 for compensation. However, after going through and finding Mrs. Liebeck at fault for some things, only $160,000 would be compensated. Punitive damages had started at $2.7 million, but had ended up being reduced to $480,000 in the
end by the jury. I do not think it changes my opinion because both the ending compensation and damages seemed to be reasonable. 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? The result of the lawsuit is fair and just. Due to negligence from McDonald, Mrs. Liebeck had went through injuries. Originally, the damages were high, but was ended up being reduced. I think that this was fair because in total I do not thing that all of the problem was due to McDonald. In this case, there was a steady balance of accountability and legal proceedings. 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
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help