Mc Donald Vs. Stella Liebeck: Hot Coffee Case
MC Donald vs. Stella Liebeck: hot coffee caseAfter our last lecture about MC Donald vs. Stella I decided to search about this case in order to determine fairness. I found that there are some factors which are against McDonalds:First of all, McDonald’s coffee temperature was between 180 and 190 F degree which was excessively high. It should be served 20 – 30 F degree lower. According to tests 180 degrees would cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. As the temperature decreased to 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature would decrease exponentially. Therefore, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. In addition, Liebeck’s case was not single, during the ten years there were more than 700 customers who were scalded by coffee burns made claims including reports of third-degree burns against McDonald. Moreover, in my opinion McDonalds should change the design of coffee cup, because cardboard or plastic cup was very hazardous for dangerous hot coffee. At the same time, McDonald was not printed any warning on the container. Furthermore, McDonald’s refused to pay Liebeck’s high medical expenses of $20000.
In my point of view, according to all of these facts McDonald was guilty in this case. McDonald injured her both mentally and physically. The accident left disabled Stella for the next two years, as well as it caused her extreme amounts of discomfort, and was quite hazardous to her health. I think that Stella deserved $160000 compensation amount. After this case, McDonald decreased the coffee temperature to 158 degrees.  This would cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds.In conclusion, Liebeck’s story, like many personal injury lawsuits, got started because of one person’s injuries but revealed a larger pattern of corporate behavior that put consumers at unreasonable risk.Reference