Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurant Case Analysis

Posted: May 7th, 2022

Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurant Case Analysis
For this milestone, you will continue to develop your ability to analyze a case using the IRAC (Issue, Rule of law, Analysis,Conclusion) Method. You will still be guided step-by-step through the process, but this time you try your hand at identifying the issue on your own.Specifically, you will apply the law of negligence to a fact pattern. You will use what you have learned about the four elements of negligence in this module: duty, breach, cause and damages to analyze the facts in the scenario described in 6-4, Unintentional Torts- Negligence: Duty,Breach, Causation, and Damages, which is modeled after a true case:Stella, a 70 year-old woman ed a 99 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window at a local chain restaurant.She was the passenger of her grandson’s car, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process she spilled the whole cup on her lap. She was wearing sweatpants which absorbed and held the coffee against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. She was taken to the hospital where she suffered third degree burns on 6% of her skin and lesser burns on 16% of her skin. She was hospitalized for eight days and had skin grafting due to the burns. She lost twenty pounds, suffered permanent disfigurement and was partially disabled for two years.Her medical expenses were $10,500, and she needed future medical procedures costing approximately $2500. She lost $5000 in income making her total financial damages $18,000.The corporate headquarters of the restaurant required the chain to keep coffee at 180 -190 degrees. At 190 degrees coffee might cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. And evidence showed many other restaurants, not in the chain, kept coffee at a must lower temperature – not hotter than 140 degrees, to prevent burning. The evidence also showed that over a ten year period, the defendant restaurant had over 700 reports of customers being burned from hot coffee.
BUA 3311: Business Law
To complete this milestone, address the following critical elements in your written analysis
:Issue: Describe the issue in this case
Rule: Explain the law the court applied to this dispute
Analysis: Use the four elements of negligence to analyze the case:
1.Duty: Explain what duty (if any), the defendant restaurant had to Stella, the customer.
2.Breach: If there was a duty, determine whether that duty breached, and if so, explain how, and if not, explain why.
3.Causation: If there was a breach, determine whether it was the cause of Stella’s damages. Explain your position.
4.Damages: Did Stella suffer damages as a result of the breach? Explain the damages she incurred.
Conclusion:
●Determine whether the restaurant is responsible for causing Stella’s injuries and must pay for her damages.
●Explain what defense, if any, the defendant restaurant can use to avoid liability in this case.
●Decide whether the restaurant had an ethical duty to Stella and explain why or why not.
●Discuss any other points you considered to determine the outcome of the case.