Introduction
As a jury member in Liebeck v. McDonald’s, my decision would have favored Liebeck based on the elements of negligence, which include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The case revolves around the tort concept of negligence, which requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages (Wpdev, 2023).
Arguments in Defense of Liebeck
Firstly, McDonald’s had a duty of care to ensure that its products, including hot coffee, were safe for consumption. This duty extends to not serving products at a temperature that could cause severe harm, which is supported by the fact that the coffee served to Liebeck was between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit – far hotter than coffee typically served at home or by other establishments.
Secondly, McDonald’s breached this duty by serving coffee at a temperature that could, and did, cause third-degree burns within seconds of contact with the skin. The severity of the burns suffered by Liebeck, which required skin grafts, demonstrates the extreme nature of the breach.
The causation element is satisfied because McDonald’s excessively hot coffee was the direct cause of Liebeck’s injuries. The evidence presented at trial showed that over 700 claims had been made against McDonald’s for injuries due to hot coffee, indicating that the company was aware of the risk and failed to mitigate it.
Finally, Liebeck suffered actual damages, including physical injuries, pain, suffering, and medical expenses. The jury awarded Liebeck compensatory damages for her actual losses and punitive damages, considering McDonald’s gross negligence in ignoring the risk associated with the high temperature of their coffee (Wpdev, 2023).
Conclusion
Considering these elements of negligence, I would side with Liebeck. The evidence suggests McDonald’s failed to meet its duty of care and that this failure was the direct cause of Liebeck’s injuries. The punitive damages awarded also serve as a deterrent to prevent similar harm in the future, which is a fundamental objective of tort law.
Reference
Wpdev. (2023). Liebeck V. McDonald’s. The American Museum of Tort Law. Web.