Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law Research Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 844 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 2

Page 1 of 3

TORT LAW Tort Law: Liebeck v. McDonald’sStep 1For this discussion, I elected to focus on the Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994) case. Sometimes in 1992, Liebeck bought coffee from McDonald’s which she ended up spilling on her lap – causing third degree burns on her thighs as well as genital area. She later on filed a suit accusing the fast-food and restaurant chain of negligence in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (Horsey and Rackley, 2013). It is important to note that before proceeding to court, the plaintiff had sought an amicable settlement with McDonalds which the company turned down by floating a counteroffer that Liebeck considered too little to consider. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed that McDonald’s had offered for sale a defective product that was unreasonably dangerous, i.e. owing to the fact that the coffee served by the restaurant chain was significantly hotter than similar products offered for sale by other companies. According to Horsey and Rackley (2013), a verdict was reached upon by a 12-person jury to the effect that the restaurant chain was to a large extent responsible for the incident under comparative negligence principles. Thus, the plaintiff was awarded punitive damages to the tune of $2.7 million and compensatory damages to the tune of $160,000 (Horsey and Rackley, 2013). It is, however, important to note that the judge awarded a total of $640,000 (after slashing punitive damages to $480,000) (Horsey and Rackley, 2013).

Stuck Writing Your "Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law" Research Paper?

View All Our Example Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law Research Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed the decision but later on settled the matter out of court, without disclosing the settlement details.Step 2In reaching its verdict, the 12-person jury argued that both the plaintiff and the defendant…

[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]

…beyond the restaurant industry. For instance, entities in the automotive industry ought to rethink the need to electronically limit the top speeds of their vehicles. This is more so the case given that it could be successfully argued that an automotive company was negligent in its release of units whose top speeds made it difficult for drivers to maintain control. For instance, the Hennessey Venom F5 has a top speed of 301 MPH. The car is manufactured by Hennessey Performance Engineering. If a driver of the car were to cause an accident while driving at a high speed, those injured by the said accident could bring a suit against the car-maker – citing comparative negligence. Thus, there may be need for the executive team at the organization to electronically cap the said speed at a lower max speed or align the top….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law" (2022, August 08) Retrieved May 22, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/liebeck-mcdonald-tort-law-2179305

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law" 08 August 2022. Web.22 May. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/liebeck-mcdonald-tort-law-2179305>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Liebeck V McDonalds Tort Law", 08 August 2022, Accessed.22 May. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/liebeck-mcdonald-tort-law-2179305
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example