Hot coffee, anyone? You have all no doubt heard of the outrageous case where an elderly woman spilled her own coffee and sued McDonalds, winning millions of dollars. Sounds outrageous, right? Try looking the case up on the internet--there is not an unbiased account of the case to be found. Why, because the real truth about the case is that it became the darling of advocates for tort reform (lawyers and insurance companies, large defendants, who want to limit the amount people can recover in lawsuits), just as other cases become the darlings of personal injury lawyers (try any five minutes on tv). Here is one view of the "truth" of the story--why was it appropriate to award millions of dollars in damages against McDonald's, even if the plaintiff was clumsy???
The Actual Facts About the McDonalds Case https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
In addition, watch this video:Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media | Retro Report | The New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE&feature=youtu.be
Ms. Liebeck made the following allegations:
a. McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and therefore, McDonald's was strictly liable to the plaintiff;
b. The coffee was "manufactured defectively due to excessive heat;"
c. "The container itself had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product defectively marketed."
Answer the following questions:
(1) Strict Liability: Was the case an appropriate one for strict liability, based either on an unreasonably dangerous product or inadequate warnings? Look over the requirements for strict liability, and apply the facts as known about this case to the requirements for strict liability in these circumstances.
(2) Punitive Damages: Regardless of whether you feel the case was an appropriate one for strict liability, was this an an appropriate case for the award of punitive damages? Look over the requirements for punitive damages, and assess whether the jury award was appropriate in this case. Why or why not?