Chapter 9 - Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability The Mcdonald's Hot-Coffee Case A majority have probably read or heard about the lawsuit in which Stella Liebeck sued Mcdonalds for burns she suffered after spilling a cup of its take-out coffee in her lap. It is also likely that whatever you know about the case is either wrong or, Photo C incomplete. Your may also have seen a chain email about the "Stella" awards , named after Liebeck. Its message is that the tort system is out of control. Whatever problems exist with the tort system are not revealed by the stories in the Stella awards email, because none of the stories is true. All are urban legends. They have been circulating online for years As for Liebeck's suit against Mcdonald's, what most people do not realize is that the coffee that burned Liebeck was 180 degrees, 15-20 degrees hotter than coffee typically served in restaurants. The jury considered whether Mcdonald's acted improperly in selling 180-degree (or hotter) coffee that was significantly hotter than a consumer would expect from common experience. Stella Liebeck incurred third-degree burns, received skin grafts, and spent seven days in the hospital. Testimony at trial showed that before the lawsuit, Mcdonalds had received over 700 complaints about burns, some of them third-degree, suffered by customers who spilled coffee on themselves. A McDonalds' executive testified that Mcdonalds knew of the risk of burns caused by its hotter-than-average coffee and knew that most customers didn't realize the specific risk posed by coffee at those temperatures, but nevertheless didn't intend to warn customers of the risk. The suit was not about a mere failure to warn that coffee is hot; it was about failure to warn of the danger created by serving materially hotter- than-normal coffee to customers who knew they were buying something hot, but not THAT hot. These facts, of course, cannot be construed only to support a finding that Mcdonald's was negligent. Discussing this case enables you to explore the concept of duty of duelcare and the cost/benefit calculus involved in any business decision, and reinforces the important lesson that we should take time to learn the facts before passing judgment-on anything. To learn more about the facts of this case (e.g. Liebeck was not driving when she spilled the coffee), click here . Note: Participating is measured by posting on two (2) different days. You should make a minimum of three (3) postings in total: one new thread and two thoughtful responses to different class members. Your participation will be graded on a 10 point scale (see Discussion Rubrics under Course Home). Discussion Questions: 1. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided this case and why? 2. Do the benefits of the hot coffee exceed the costs, where the costs are measured as the probability of an injury times the medical and other expenses of an accident? 3. Could Mcdonald's avoid liability in subsequent cases by increasing its warning about the temperature of its coffee? How would you advise them to change their warning