McDonald's Coffee Case Overview
what in good faith was the responsibility on the part of McDonald's and the defendants? Clearly good faith on the part of McDonald's would have been to not serve scalding hot coffee in the first place. McDonald's also could have printed a warning on each Styrofoam cup -- in very large letters -- "Caution: Very Hot Coffee." But since McDonald's didn't provide ample warnings about the scalding nature of its beverage that assumes the fast-food company either didn't know that a coffee temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit can cause third degree burns; or McDonald's simply didn't care and blithely assumed that no customer would be clumsy enough to spill the coffee. Either way, good faith on the part of the company was sidetracked or pushed out of sight, so to speak.
Good faith on the part of the customer, Ms. Liebeck, would have been to perhaps feel that the cup was very hot given the temperature of the Styrofoam cup when she wrapped her hands around it. That said, she was 79 years of age at the time so she may not have had the sensitivity in her aging hands that would have allowed her to detect the very hot coffee inside the cup. Still, the bottom line...
Stella Liebeck, who sued fast-food giant McDonald's for compensation, owing to several third-degree, and some second-degree, burns, sustained by her from a cup of scalding McDonald's coffee; and 2) Roy L. Pearson, who sued dry cleaning service, Custom Cleaners, for a compensation of many million dollars, owing to the loss of a pair of his trousers. The facts, issues, laws, ethical issues, and jury decision for both cases, as
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now