Damages 3. Judicial Elections 4. Mandatory Arbitration The first exhibit was centered on public relations and featured the case that gave the movie its name‚ the Stella Liebeck v. McDonalds case in New Mexico. The information presented on this case was astonishing. After listening to the “real” details of what happened to Mrs. Liebeck‚ I felt like a complete dummy. There was a section of this exhibit in which they were interviewing random people on the street to see what
Premium Film English-language films President of the United States
And Now‚ The Rest Of The Story . . . By Kevin G. Cain* The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit 14 Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law omehow‚ somewhere along the way‚ the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit became the poster child for frivolous lawsuits. Who hasn’t taken a crack at this lawsuit for the sake of furthering their own cause? David Letterman and numerous other comedians have exploited this case as the punch-line to countless jokes.1 One of my favorite Seinfeld episodes involves Cosmo Kramer suing
Premium Law Burn Lawsuit
the World* Summary The case Stella Liebeck v. McDonald is one of the most talked about consumer lawsuit‚ sparking interest in people of not only the United States‚ but across the globe. Those who have studied the case in details pity the‚ at the time‚ 79 years old Stella Leibeck and those who are have only studied the synopsis of this case‚ find her lawsuit outrageous and frivolous. In either case‚ virtually everyone who has heard this case has an opinion of Stella Leibeck and her lawsuit against
Premium Trial Pleading Burn
by an older lady by the name Stella Liebeck‚ who purchased a 49 cent cup of coffee at the New Mexico franchise. She purchased it through the drive-thru and while her grand son drove‚ she opened the lid while the cup was between legs to add sugar and cream. The opening of the lid was that action that caused as serious problem for McDonald’s‚ by doing so she spilled coffee on her lap. Even though coffee is know to be hot this one was a little more than hot‚ Mrs. Liebeck endured third degree burns form
Premium Coffee Family English-language films
destruction of skin‚ flesh and muscle. Here’s the whole story. Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque‚ New Mexico‚ was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee in February 1992. Liebeck‚ 79 at the time‚ ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds. After receiving the order‚ the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil
Premium Burn Temperature Fahrenheit
the United States. The documentary started with a $0.49 cent cup of coffee from McDonalds that turned into a million dollar lawsuit. Stella Liebeck 79 years suffered from third degree burns from the cup of coffee she had purchased which was sold at temperatures that it shouldn’t be. The burns were so severe causing her to be hospitalized her for eight days. Liebecks family wanted McDonalds to pay for the medical bill‚ but McDonalds refused to pay the full bill causing this situation to lead court
Premium Tort
The McDonald’s hot coffee case occurred on February 27‚ 1992. Stella Liebeck‚ 79 year old woman‚ took McDonalds to court for being burned by hot coffee she purchased. While the car was not moving‚ but said to have been stopped at the time‚ Stella had the McDonalds cup of coffee between her legs and as she tried to open the lid the cup tipped over and burned her. This incident caused third degree burns on 16 percent of her body; she was hospitalized for eight days‚ had extensive skin treatment‚ skin
Premium Fast food restaurant Burn Product liability
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
Premium Law Tort Negligence
easily fixed without any high burden to the company and would have avoided the bad publicity and expenses of the case at hand. Although Mrs. Liebeck should have taken more precaution in the matter‚ customers put their faith in a company that they will receive a safe product. Therefore‚ McDonald’s was rightly awarded majority blame and required to compensate Stella for her
Premium Law Negligence Tort
Tort Reform Legislation The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial in certain civil lawsuits. The proponents of tort reform legislation believe that in recent past there have been abuses in the civil justice system that need to be limited. In contrast‚ the opponents of the legislation believe that access to courts in order to seek remedy when deliberately or negligently harmed is vital for safeguarding individual rights. Opponents also believe
Premium Law United States Constitution Common law