Mrs. Liebeck ordered food and coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru. After receiving her order, she placed the coffee cup between her legs and took off the cap to add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled, soaking into the sweatpants she was wearing. It was estimated that the coffee was 180F. The temperature caused third-degree burns to her inner thigh, perineum, buttocks, genitals, and groin. Because of the extent and location of the burns, she required wound debridement and skin grafting. [Third-degree burns destroy the first three layers of the skin and can damage underlying muscle and bone.]

 During the trial, testimony indicated that McDonald's repeatedly ignored warnings that the temperature of their coffee exceeded the industry standards of 140F and that maintaining the 180F could cause severe burns. McDonald's countered that argument by testifying that coffee is supposed to be hot and they provide what the customers want.

ISSUE: What the court struggled with wasn't whether coffee should be hot, but whether McDonald's failed to adhere to industry standards and failed to warn customers that their coffee could cause severe burns.

RULE: The jury awarded Liebeck $2000 in compensatory damages and $2.7M in punitive damages. McDonald's appealed the verdict but ended up entering into a settlement agreement with Liebeck for an undisclosed amount.

EMPHASIS: Yes, coffee is supposed to be hot. But it's not supposed to be that it causes third-degree burns. This case is often pointed to demonstrate frivolous lawsuits and the excess of jury awards. But what isn't usually mentioned is the seriousness of the injuries Liebeck received.

Questions:

1. Do you think that people file frivolous lawsuits just to get rich? Explain your answer.
2. Why do you think the law would require something like McDonald's to put a warning on their coffee that it may be hot? Explain your answer.

6-5

FACTS: Sophie Schopp fell in the bathroom of her home, striking her head. She wasn't found until 5 hours later, when the home health aide arrived.The aide called an ambulance and Schopp was taken to the ER. As part of her diagnosis, the doctors ordered x-rays. During the exam, a radiology technologist dropped an x-ray cartridge on Schopp's head. A subsequent CT scan showed that Schopp had a large subdural hematoma (bleeding in the brain). Doctors performed a craniotomy (a drill into the skull) to remove the build-up of fluid.While she initially improved, her condition worsened and she died 14 days after she was admitted to the hospital.The family filed a medical malpractice lawsuit.

The plaintiff's expert witness testified that the subdural hematoma was the result of the x-ray cartridge being dropped on Schopp's head.The defendant's expert witness testified that the subdural hematoma was caused by Schopp falling in her bathroom.

ISSUE: The question in this case is which expert witness was qualified to give an opinion and which one should the jury believe.

RULE: The court ruled that the jury had the right to decide which expert witness they found more credible. The credibility of a witness is a question of fact; juries are the ones who weigh that evidence.

EMPHASIS: This case focuses on the role that expert witnesses play in a trial and the importance of their testimony when addressing the causation element.

Questions:

1. Shouldn't expert witness testimony be the same regardless of which party they are testifying for? Explain your answer.
2. Could an expert testify as a plaintiff expert witness in one case and a defense expert witness in another case? Explain your answer.

6-6

Question 1: Torts can be classified by either action or result. Which do you think is easier to prove? Explain your answer.

Question 2: Off-duty healthcare professionals do not have a legal duty to provide medical assistance if they see an accident. A doctor for example, can drive by a bad car accident and not be legally required to stop and help. Do you think that should be changed? Explain your answer.

Question 3: A judge is the only person who can determine whether or not a legal duty exists. While a person might not have a legal duty, should an ethical or moral duty be used to determine guilt? Explain your answer.

Question 4: In negligence, we use the reasonable person standard to determine breach; but in malpractice we use standards of care. Wouldn't it be easier to use the reasonable person standard for both negligence and malpractice? Explain your answer.

Question 5: In malpractice, an expert witness testifies as to whether causation has been satisfied or not. But what about negligence? What testimony and from whom provides evidence of causation in a negligence cast?Explain your answer.