Critical Thinking In The Legal Environment: Tort And Product Liability

Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment:
Torts and Products Liability
University of Maryland University College

Introduction Through the use of the precepts of product and service liability law, consumers can go to court to be compensated for the injuries and/or losses they experienced when using a particular product or service. Product liability cases are a significant portion of United States litigations; there are approximately one million cases a year (Kubasek, Brennan and Browne, 2015, p. 187). Additionally, these cases are accruing costs in excess of $700 billion in the United States every year (Kubasek, Brennan and Browne, 2015, p. 187). Consumers should be allowed to hold companies liable if they
In the Liebeck case, the first law that is applicable to is the tort law, an injury to another’s person or property (Kubasek, Brennan & Browne, 2015, p. 153). The tort law is applicable because Liebeck was injured as a result of being burned by McDonald’s coffee (Cain, 2007). These injuries gave her the right to file suit against McDonald’s in order to recuperate damages. This would be classified as a negligent tort since the injuries that Liebeck sustained are considered to be due to negligence on McDonald’s part (Cain, 2007). McDonald’s had over 700 claims of burns from their customers and did not take any action to rectify the matter by either lowering the temperature or by clearly labeling their coffee (Cain, 2007). In addition to tort law, product liability law is applicable in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case. This law is applicable because Liebeck purchased coffee and assumed that she would be able to drink it without injury (Kubasek, Brennan & Browne, 2015, p. 187). Since that was not the case, then McDonald’s would be held liable. Based on the theory of negligence of the product liability law, McDonald’s had a duty of care to ensure that their product is received as expected without resulting in injury (Kubasek, Brennan and Browne, 2015, p. 188). Since the breach of this duty resulted in Liebeck’s injury, then McDonald’s was negligent and liable for her
In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, the jury made the right decision to hold McDonald’s liable and award Liebeck damages (Cain, 2007). Liebeck’s case of negligence was supported by the evidence that showed that McDonald’s knew that their coffee was excessively hot and served it that way to “maximize flavor” (Cain, 2007). Moreover, it was discovered that McDonald’s had over 700 burn claims from their hot coffee and that they did not appropriately label their hot coffee (Cain, 2007). Thus, McDonald’s should have been held liable for negligence. This case also involved question of product liability as McDonald’s coffee was the object in question. When a person purchases coffee, they expect to be able to drink it. Such was not the case with the coffee that Liebeck purchased, so the coffee would be considered defective. The coffee would also breach the implied warranty of merchantability; at 190 degrees, it was not fit for drinking. The 190 degree coffee would also breach the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose since it injured Liebeck when she tried to “use it.” On the basis and proof of product defect and the breaches of implied warranties, Liebeck deserved a favorable decision (Cain,