In 1992 a 70-year-old woman was severely burned when a cup of coffee she had just purchased at a McDonald's drive-through window spilled on her lap. She apparently held the cup between her legs and tried to pry off the lid as she drove away. The coffee was hot enough (185 degrees) to cause third-degree burns that required skin grafts and long-term medical care. A jury awarded this woman $2.86 million, $160,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Should McDonald's be held liable for these injuries?

Was the restaurant negligent in serving such hot coffee at a drive-through window?

Was the consumer negligent in her own actions?

What facts would you want to know before deciding whether this settlement was fair?

What alternatives would a jury face in deciding this case? Who are the stakeholders of your decision? What is the impact of each alterna- tive mentioned above on each stakeholder you have identified? Should caveat emptor govern the situation? What are the consequences of the jury's decision? What rights and duties are involved? How would you decide the case? Is it mostly a matter of consequences, or are there important principles involved?