Liebeck vs. Mcdonalds
Natasha Oslinger, Benjamin Shawley, Dominick Franco, EliasAnanda
September 2, 2015
Introduction to the Problem
We were presented with the task of deciding if the consequences Mcdonalds faced in the case of Stella Liebeck were just, or if further/lesser action should have been taken. There is a common belief that Liebeck was at fault for the burns delivered to her after accidentally spilling dangerously hot coffee on herself. Others say Mcdonalds is to blame for giving an elderly woman coffee that could potentially kill her. While it was her mistake to spill the coffee, and she was awarded an enormous settlement of money, we believe that proper actions were not taken by Mcdonalds to prevent this situation from happening again. By going over burn statistics, how Liebeck was compensated, and Mcdonalds preventive precautions, we will attempt to show whether or not this case was settled in a safe, and fair manner.
Burn Statistics
The coffee served at McDonalds is ~180*-190*, making it a few degrees higher than most homebrewed coffees. Based on evidence and research, we can make a highly educated assumption that within three seconds of exposure, water at 140* can give a human third degree burns. Liebeck’s coffee was 40-50 times hotter than it should have been when it spilled into her lap. “In the ten years before the case, more than 700 people who were scalded by coffee burns made claims against the company.” But McDonald's never lowered the temperature of its coffee.Also to note, McDonald’s was, at the time, making 2.7 million dollars per day with coffee sales, and the amount they gave to Liebeck would have been next to nothing for the company.
Was Liebeck properly compensated
Originally, Liebeck sought to settle for $20,000, in her opinion, this would be proper compensation for her medical bills, for her daughter's loss of wages which resulted from the incident, and for physiological damage. Mcdonald's offered to give her $800. After refusing to settle for even an amount that would cover her medical bills, Liebeck filed a lawsuit for $100,000 in compensatory damages and triple punitive damages in order to send a message to Mcdonalds that their coffee was dangerously hot. A month after the trial, Liebeck was awarded $640,000, “He [the judge] reasoned that this amount was approximately three times the compensatory damages. He also said the case "was not a runaway" case and that the revised amount would be "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonald's for the safety hazards posed by its hot coffee.”
Were Proper Actions Taken?
As a result of the trial, McDonald's has not taken the initiative to lower their coffee temperatures. In addition, any lawsuits made since the case have been mostly in favor of the defense (McDonald). The only change in McDonald’s behavior is the small warning label on the side of the coffee cups, which prevents McDonald’s from being seen as liable regarding any accidents that occur that are escalated because of their high temperatures. About $492 million dollars are made by McDonald’s each year from coffee sales alone. Averages of 70 severe burn incidents appear per year because of the coffee, a small amount considering the number of sales. That means 7.02 million coffees are sold per burn victim. Despite the minuscule statistic comparison of coffee burns to the amount of money earned, the company is against providing any compensation to any of the victims. McDonald’s did not change as a result of the trial and will not change until legitimate regulations are put in place.
Conclusion
So in conclusion we have decided that Stella Liebeck was compensated accordingly but Mcdonald's was not punished and they did not make the changes needed to right their wrongs. Mcdonald’s, in result of this case, made back what they gave to Stella in less than a day and made no changes to the temperature of their coffee. What we believe should have been the result of this case is that Stella Liebeck was compensated for the damages and losses of her and her family but also Mcdonalds should have been either urged or mandated to lower the temperature of their coffee or somehow make it safer for their consumers so this does not happen again.
Natasha Oslinger, Benjamin Shawley, Dominick Franco, EliasAnanda
September 2, 2015
Introduction to the Problem
We were presented with the task of deciding if the consequences Mcdonalds faced in the case of Stella Liebeck were just, or if further/lesser action should have been taken. There is a common belief that Liebeck was at fault for the burns delivered to her after accidentally spilling dangerously hot coffee on herself. Others say Mcdonalds is to blame for giving an elderly woman coffee that could potentially kill her. While it was her mistake to spill the coffee, and she was awarded an enormous settlement of money, we believe that proper actions were not taken by Mcdonalds to prevent this situation from happening again. By going over burn statistics, how Liebeck was compensated, and Mcdonalds preventive precautions, we will attempt to show whether or not this case was settled in a safe, and fair manner.
Burn Statistics
The coffee served at McDonalds is ~180*-190*, making it a few degrees higher than most homebrewed coffees. Based on evidence and research, we can make a highly educated assumption that within three seconds of exposure, water at 140* can give a human third degree burns. Liebeck’s coffee was 40-50 times hotter than it should have been when it spilled into her lap. “In the ten years before the case, more than 700 people who were scalded by coffee burns made claims against the company.” But McDonald's never lowered the temperature of its coffee.Also to note, McDonald’s was, at the time, making 2.7 million dollars per day with coffee sales, and the amount they gave to Liebeck would have been next to nothing for the company.
Was Liebeck properly compensated
Originally, Liebeck sought to settle for $20,000, in her opinion, this would be proper compensation for her medical bills, for her daughter's loss of wages which resulted from the incident, and for physiological damage. Mcdonald's offered to give her $800. After refusing to settle for even an amount that would cover her medical bills, Liebeck filed a lawsuit for $100,000 in compensatory damages and triple punitive damages in order to send a message to Mcdonalds that their coffee was dangerously hot. A month after the trial, Liebeck was awarded $640,000, “He [the judge] reasoned that this amount was approximately three times the compensatory damages. He also said the case "was not a runaway" case and that the revised amount would be "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonald's for the safety hazards posed by its hot coffee.”
Were Proper Actions Taken?
As a result of the trial, McDonald's has not taken the initiative to lower their coffee temperatures. In addition, any lawsuits made since the case have been mostly in favor of the defense (McDonald). The only change in McDonald’s behavior is the small warning label on the side of the coffee cups, which prevents McDonald’s from being seen as liable regarding any accidents that occur that are escalated because of their high temperatures. About $492 million dollars are made by McDonald’s each year from coffee sales alone. Averages of 70 severe burn incidents appear per year because of the coffee, a small amount considering the number of sales. That means 7.02 million coffees are sold per burn victim. Despite the minuscule statistic comparison of coffee burns to the amount of money earned, the company is against providing any compensation to any of the victims. McDonald’s did not change as a result of the trial and will not change until legitimate regulations are put in place.
Conclusion
So in conclusion we have decided that Stella Liebeck was compensated accordingly but Mcdonald's was not punished and they did not make the changes needed to right their wrongs. Mcdonald’s, in result of this case, made back what they gave to Stella in less than a day and made no changes to the temperature of their coffee. What we believe should have been the result of this case is that Stella Liebeck was compensated for the damages and losses of her and her family but also Mcdonalds should have been either urged or mandated to lower the temperature of their coffee or somehow make it safer for their consumers so this does not happen again.