Law & American Society
Negligence
Negligence
• Negligence is conduct that falls below the
standard established by law for protecting
others against unreasonable risks of harm.
• Neglect?
Dr. D’Angelo, a surgeon, forgets to remove a clamp from a
patient’s body while operating and stitches the patient up.
Monica leaves a loaded gun on the floor where her younger
brothers and sisters usually play. A child is shot.
A city employee working in a manhole forgets to replace the cover
when he goes to lunch and a pedestrian falls in and is injured.
Elements of Negligence
• For a plaintiff to win a negligence action
against the defendant, each of the
following elements must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence:
• 1. Duty: The defendant,
or accused wrongdoer,
owed a duty of care to
the plaintiff, or injured
person.
• 2. Breach of duty: the
defendant’s conduct
breached or violated that
duty.
• 3. Causation: The
defendant’s conduct
caused the plaintiff’s
harm
• 4. Damages: the plaintiff
suffered actual injuries or
losses.
• ****All of these elements
must be proven for the
plaintiff to prevail****
Duty & Breach
• Everyone has a general duty, or legal
obligation, to exercise reasonable care
toward other persons and their property.
• Negligence law is primarily concerned with
compensating victims who are harmed by
a wrongdoer’s action or inaction that
breaches, or violates, this standard of
reasonable care.
The Reasonable Person Standard
• “the reasonable person of ordinary
prudence or carefulness”
• This is the way we expect the idealized
person to act, not the way a typical person
acts.
The Spilled Coffee
•
•
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the “McDonald's
coffee case,” is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in
the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to
a woman who burned herself with hot coffee. The trial judge reduced the
total award to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount
before an appeal was decided. The case entered popular understanding as
an example of frivolous litigation;[ ABC News calls the case “the poster child
of excessive lawsuits.”
Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming
that it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served
at any other place. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior
opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.
Reformers defend the popular understanding of the case as materially
accurate; note that the vast majority of judges to consider similar cases
dismiss them before they get to a jury; and argue that McDonald's refusal to
offer more than a nuisance settlement reflects the meritless nature of the
suit rather than any wrongdoing.
•
•
•
•
Background
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from
Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drivethrough window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the
passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car
so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the
coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to
remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held
it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds,
scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital,
where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six
percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in
the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of
treatment followed.
Attempts to settle
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her
medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800.
When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney
Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing
McDonald's of “gross negligence” for selling coffee that was “unreasonably
dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.” McDonald's refused Morgan's
offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a
mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused
these final pre-trial attempts to settle.
• Evidence presented to the jury
• During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's
required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At
that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two
to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee
should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a
number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially
lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented
the jury with evidence that 180 °F coffee like that McDonald’s served
may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary)
in about 12 to 15 seconds. (As a reference, the boiling point of water
is 212 °F or 100 °C.) Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C)
would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20
seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically
false. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could
provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin,
thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason
for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that,
because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a
distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the
coffee hot during the trip. However, the company's own research
showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
•
•
•
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the
company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee
to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for
more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton,
testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate
its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn
hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs
argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and
throat if consumed when served. The trial lasted from August 8–17, 1994, and the
twelve-person jury reached their verdict before Judge Robert H. Scott on August 18.
Verdict and settlement
Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's
was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there
was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large
enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory
damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded
her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from
Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee
revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive
damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000.
The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but
the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
Liebeck died on August 4, 2004, at the age of 91.
Causation
• Once the plaintiff proves that the
defendant owes him or her a duty and that
this duty was violated, there must be proof
that the defendant’s acts caused harm to
the plaintiff.
• When you think about the elements of
causation you must consider two separate
issues:
Causation
• 1. Cause in fact-is harm that would not
have occurred without the wrongful act,
the act is the cause in fact.
• 2. Proximate Cause-is there must be a
close connection between the wrongful act
and the harm caused.
Causation
• The Great Chicago Fire
Damages
• A plaintiff who proves duty, breach, and
both forms of causation still must prove
actual damages to recover in a negligence
action.
• As a freshman college prank, Carolyn
decides to remove a stop sign from an
intersection and put it in her dormitory
room. To avoid being noticed, she chooses
a stop sign at the intersection of a littleused country road and a two-lane state
highway several miles out of town. The
night after her prank, a motorist from out of
state drives through the intersection and is
struck by a car traveling at 50 miles per
hour along the state highway.
• Both motorists are seriously injured, and their
cars are totally demolished. They recover from
the their injuries after several months. The police
suspect a college prank, and after some
investigating, are able to find out who removed
the sign. The injured motorists bring a civil action
against Carolyn, claiming extensive damages.
• 1. Can the injured motorists prove that Carolyn’s
act caused their harm? Explain your answer.
• 2. Assume that the plaintiffs can prove duty,
breach, and causation. List all the types of
damages each plaintiff might have suffered.
Could they recover all of these damages?
Explain your answer.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• One traditional legal defense to negligence
is contributory negligence.
• This means that as a plaintiff, you cannot
recover damages from the defendant if
your own negligence contributed in any
way to the harm suffered.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• comparative negligence defense means
dividing the loss according to the degree
to which each person is at fault.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• Assumption of risk is used when a person
voluntarily encounters a known danger
and decides to accept the risk of that
danger.
• Analyze each case below. Identify the plaintiff and
defendant and decide whether the defendant has a legal
defense. Assume the state has a comparative
negligence law.
• 1. Olivia and her friends go to an amusement park, and
she decides to ride the scariest roller coaster. After each
rider is seated, the attendant secures that rider with a
safety bar. After the first large hill, she detaches it. Later
in the ride, Olivia is thrown from the roller coaster and is
badly hurt.
• 2. A large sign posted at the foot of the
lifeguard station warns of a very
dangerous undertow beyond the first
sandbar. There are buoys floating around
the sandbar. Howard swims out beyond
the sandbar and drowns before the
lifeguard is able to reach him.
• 3. Joel’s car runs out of gas on a railway
crossing in a rural area. He puts on his flashers
to warn approaching cars and begins walking to
the nearest gas station, which is a mile away. A
freight train approaches, and the engineer
sounds hi shorn several times, thinking the
driver will move off the tracks. By the time the
engineer realizes that the car is abandoned, it is
too late to stop the train. The car is totally
demolished.
Law & American Society
Negligence
Negligence
• Tort law establishes standards of care that society
expects from people. These standards protect
people against unreasonable risks of harm. When
conduct falls below these standards, negligence
has occurred. Tort law analyzes such negligence
as it relates to a person’s conduct. Even a person
who cares a great deal about the welfare of others
may be negligent if his or her conduct creates an
unreasonable risk of harm. Likewise, a person
who is unconcerned about the safety of others
may not be negligent if his or her conduct does not
subject another person to an unreasonable risk of
harm.
• Dr. D’Angelo, a surgeon, forgets to remove
a clamp from a patients body while
operating and stitches the patient up.
• Monica leaves a loaded rifle on the floor
where her younger brothers and sisters
usually play. A child is shot.
• A city employee working in a manhole
forgets to replace the cover when he goes
to lunch and a pedestrian falls in and is
injured
• A drug company markets a cold medicine
without conducting adequate medical
testing. It assumes the pill is safe because
people have used similar drugs for years.
A woman develops a serious illness from
using the drug.
Elements of Negligence
• Each of the following elements must be
proven by a preponderance of the
evidence for a plaintiff to win a negligence
action against the defendant
Duty
• Duty: The defendant, or accused
wrongdoer, owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff, or injured person.
Duty
• Everyone has a general duty, or legal
obligation, to exercise reasonable care
toward other persons and their property.
Breach of Duty
• Breach of duty: The defendant’s conduct
breached or violated that duty.
Breach of Duty
• Negligence law is primarily concerned with
compensating victims who are harmed by
a wrongdoer’s action or inaction that
breaches, or violates, this standard of
reasonable care.
The Case of Bartender Liability
• Lance is a 16 year old high school junior. He gathers the
alcohol left over from his parents New Year’s Day party
and decides to throw a party at his house on a Saturday
night when his parents are out of town. He knows that
some of his friends have driven to his house, but doesn’t
pay much attention to whether or not they are drinking.
He sees his friend Abby finish a beer, grab her car keys,
and walk out the door to go home. Stefan, another
friend. Leaves with Abby to get a ride home. Lance does
not know whether Stefan has been drinking , but
watches as Abby drives the car away with Stefan in the
passenger seat. As Abby pulls her car onto the highway,
she swerves and hits another car head-on. Stefan and
the driver of the other car are seriously injured.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.
Who can sue whom in this situation?
2. What duty did Lance have in this situation? Did he violate
that duty?
3. What duty, if any, do Lance’s parents have in this situation?
Did they violate that duty? Would it make a difference if his
parents had been at home?
4. Now assume that lance is a 25-year-old bartender who
serves Abby and Stefan, who are both over 21, although he
knows that they are intoxicated. The rest of the facts remain
the same. Answer questions a and b using this scenario.
5. Is it fair to hold Lance responsible in either situation? Give
your reasons.
6. If you were at the underage drinking party described, what
would you do? What if you were at the bar in the second
scenario?
7. Some bars have “designated driver” programs. Why have
they done this? Should people who hold private parties in
their homes do anything special to protect their guests from
drinking and driving? What, if anything, could be done?
Causation
• Causation: The defendant’s conduct
caused the plaintiff’s harm.
Causation
• Once a plaintiff proves that the defendant
owes him or her a duty and that this duty
was violated, there must be proof that the
defendant’s acts caused the harm to the
plaintiff.
Causation
• When you think about the elements of
causation, you must consider two separate
issues:
Cause in Fact
&
Proximate Cause
Cause in Fact
• Cause in Fact is easy to understand.
• If the harm would not have occurred
without the wrongful act, the act is the
cause in fact.
Proximate Cause
• It is often hard to draw the line in
proximate cause situations.
• The basic idea behind proximate cause is
that there must be a close connection
between the wrongful act and the harm
caused.
• The harm caused must have been a
forseeable result of the act or acts.
• How much was foreseeable harm?
Damages
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual
injuries or losses.
Damages
• The concept of damages revolves around
responsibility. Requiring payment of
money has traditionally been the way
society has tried to hold people
responsible for their actions.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• In Janifer v. Jandebeur, the estate of a
passenger killed in a car accident brought
suit against the intoxicated driver, The
court found that the passenger, Mr.
Redman, voluntarily exposed himself to an
unreasonable risk when he agreed to ride
with the intoxicated driver. Thus, Mr.
Redman knowingly assumed the risk of
injury and/or death. Accordingly, the court
did not award his estate damages from the
driver.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• Suppose a group of teenagers are playing
a game in which they run out in front of
speeding cars. Arguably, these teenagers
know of and appreciate the danger of
engaging in such actions. If Todd is struck
by a car and sues the driver, the
driver/defendant may be able to use the
defense of assumption of risk.
Defenses to Negligence Suits
• On the other hand, assume Todd is
reading a book while crossing a street and
is struck by a speeding car. In this
scenario Todd has knowingly assumed a
risk, but he did fail to use ordinary care in
crossing the street. Thus, the defendant
could argue that the plaintiff was
contributorily negligent because he
breached his duty of care.
Cigarettes and the Law
• Grab a book off the counter and read the
problem of “Cigarettes and the Law” and
answer the questions that go with it.