Business Law Example Answer
McDonalds and the Hot Cup of Coffee
Plaintiff: Stella Liebeck
Defendant: McDonalds
Legal Issues:
Was the defendant negligent in causing injury to the plaintiff?
Were all the hurdles of negligence met?
If there was negligence on the part of the defendant, what damages is the plaintiff entitled
to?
Legal Arguments:
Duty of care: Does the defendant McDonalds owe a duty of care to the plaintiff Stella
Liebeck? Test of Foreseeability – Ask whether a reasonable person in similar
circumstances would have foreseen the injury to the plaintiff as a result of his/her actions.
If yes, duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff argues: A reasonable person could foresee that injury could occur as a result
of the defendant’s actions (serving extremely hot coffee to a customer). At that
temperature, coffee is not immediately drinkable and takes only a few seconds to burn
through clothing causing third degree burns.
Defendant argues: Injury resulting from serving hot coffee to a customer was not
reasonably foreseeable.
Standard of care: Ask (a) What standard of care is defendant required to meet (that
exercised by the reasonable fast food company) and (b) based on facts, did the defendant
meet the requisite standard of care?
Plaintiff argues: McDonalds did not meet the required standard of care. McDonalds
could have reasonably lowered the temperature of the coffee. It is unreasonable to serve
coffee at 185 degrees F which renders the coffee undrinkable. Other fast food companies
serve their coffee at lower temperature (160 degrees F), which would have given more
time to prevent serious burns if coffee spilled on clothing. At home coffee is served at an
even lower temperature. McDonalds despite being aware of 700 burns from their
customers drinking their hot coffee over the last 10 years yet did nothing to try to reduce
risk of injury such as reducing the temperature of the coffee.
McDonalds can also reasonably have put the cream and sugar into the coffee for their
customers to reduce risk of coffee being spilled as other fast food firms do. A different
design of the lid might also help prevent risk of injury to customer.
McDonalds could reasonably have provided more written or verbal warnings to the
plaintiff beyond label on cup which is difficult to see. For example, McDonalds could
verbally warn customers, and in particular children and elderly, to be extremely careful
handling the cup since coffee is hot. McDonalds does properly warn customer regarding
hot apple pie, so they can also reasonably warn customers about extremely hot coffee. In
restaurants, many food servers warn their customers to be careful since the plate is hot,
McDonalds could reasonably provide the same verbal warning or provide more clear
written warnings that the coffee is extremely hot on the cup itself.
1
Defendant argues that it is reasonable for them to serve their coffee at a very hot
temperature. It needs to be extremely hot in order to taste better, which is what their
customers desire. In serving coffee at a drive through, a hotter temperature allows the
coffee to retain its hot temperature longer. 700 reports of burns out of billions of cups of
coffee served every year is statistically insignificant. McDonalds did provide a warning
label on the cup. It is not reasonable to ask McDonalds to warn all of its customers that
the coffee is hot, the time it would take to warn every customer would affect profit
margins. Besides, the reasonable customer already knows that coffee is hot, additional
warnings are not necessary.
Causation: Plaintiff argues that McDonalds caused the injury. Applying the ‘but for’
test, plaintiff argues that ‘but for’ the act of McDonalds serving hot coffee, the injury
would not have taken place. There is also proximate cause in that no intervening acts
broke the chain of causation, for example no one else collided with the plaintiff causing
the coffee to spill.
Defendant argues that they did not cause the injury, rather the plaintiff caused the injury
by spilling the coffee on herself.
Remoteness: Plaintiff argues that the injuries are not too remote, since the general type of
injury (burns) is reasonably foreseeable from serving extremely hot coffee. The fact that
she suffered serious third degree burns due to her frail skin is irrelevant, as the defendant
must take the victim as they find him or her (‘think skull’ principle). Defendant argues
that injuries are too remote, no one could foresee third degree burns to skin as a result of
drinking coffee.
Defences: The defendant argues that the plaintiff engaged in contributory negligence in
her actions. She should have been aware that all coffee is extremely hot as any
reasonable person would have been aware. As a result, the plaintiff should have
exercised more caution in how she handled the cup of coffee. Instead, she acted in a
careless manner. A reasonable customer would not place the cup of coffee between her
legs in order to take off the lid due to the risk of spilling the coffee. Due to contributory
negligence, the damages of the plaintiff should be reduced either to $0 or at least
minimized.
The plaintiff argues that there was no contributory negligence on her part. It was
reasonable to put the coffee between her legs to take off the lid. There was no other
reasonable way to put in the cream and sugar since it was a drive through and there were
no coffee holders in the vehicle.
Damages: The plaintiff argues for special damages which can be quantified such as
medical expenses and the lost work wages for the week her daughter helped take care of
her in the hospital. She also argues for general damages for pain and suffering due to the
extreme burns on sensitive parts of her body. The plaintiff also argues for punitive
damages to punish McDonalds and to deter other firms from serving extremely hot coffee
without proper warnings or practices. The defendant argues that punitive damages
should not be applied in this case.
Legal Judgment (note, one could also judge completely in favour of the defendant):
Based on the arguments above, the defendant McDonalds has engaged in negligence by
serving extremely hot coffee in an unreasonable manner. The defendant is therefore
liable for special and general damages to the plaintiff Stella Liebeck. They are not liable
2
for punitive damages as the defendant did not act in a reckless manner. The damages are
reduced by 25% due to the contributory negligence on behalf of the plaintiff Stella
Liebeck.
3