Assignment:
Stella Liebeck, an elderly grandmother, received third-degree burns when she spilled coffee purchased at a McDonald's drive-through. At trial, experts testified that McDonald's coffee was too hot to be consumed at the point of purchase, was hotter than any other restaurant's coffee or coffee brewed at home, and was so hot that third-degree burns would result within three to five seconds of coming into contact with the skin. McDonald's also conceded that the coffee was brewed extremely hot for commercial (profit) reasons, because most customers wanted coffee to be hot throughout their commute. After finding the company liable, the jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck two days' worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, an amount equivalent to $2.7 million, in punitive damages. The award, although reduced to much less than that, set off a firestorm of criticism that has not died down to this day. Do you believe that it's possible for coffee to be unreasonably dangerous? See https://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com for one filmmaker's perspective on this case.
Q1: Do you believe that the jury's award of $2.7 millions for third-degree burns was excessive? Why do you believe that such an award is necessary? Can you identify any standards which have changed in the industry based upon this case?
Review the following factual scenario.
A man entered into a lease for an apartment with a landlord. The lease stated that the term was month-to-month. After one month, the man while taking a shower, noticed the drywall crumbling. Under the drywall was a build up of harmful mold. Rather than informing the landlord, the man simply sealed off the bathroom area. He continued to reside in the apartment two monthswithout paying rent. When pressed for the rent, the man said that he was withholding the rent because the apartment was uninhabitable. Further, the man went to the city health and licensing department and complained about hazardous mold condition which consituted a code violations that the landlord failed to correct.
After an inspection, the agency cited the landlord for the presence of mold, and ordered him to clear up the violation. After the inspection, the landlord brought an eviction action against the man and obtained a judgment against him for eviction. Will the eviction order hold up under the stated facts? Was the man right to withhold the rent? What arguments, if any, may the landlord raise to avoid paying the code violations?
Q2: Under the circumstances, what is the most likely ruling of the court?