Business tort cases may take various forms, but all of them are rather severe and challenging for an organization. The outcome of any of them can have a serious impact on the future and success of a company. For all business owners, such cases are a significant and severe threat that everyone tries to escape or eliminate as soon as possible. If a company finds itself in this situation, it is of vital importance to immediately and carefully go over its options and plan the most beneficial and sensible direction forward (“Business tort litigation,” n.d.). Some tort cases happened many decades ago but are still remembered by people and serve as a good model for business owners. The purpose of this paper is to discuss in detail one of such cases, provide its background and outcome, and describe what has happened, the participants, and circumstances.
The McDonald’s hot coffee case is one of the most famous American tort cases that is still being discussed and analyzed. The parties involved in this case were seventy-nine-year-old Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s company. This happened in 1992 when Liebeck “bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap” (“The McDonald’s hot coffee case,” n.d., para. 1). In less than four seconds, the spilled fluid caused third-degree burns and sent the woman to a hospital, where she has spent about a week. Sixteen percent of her body, including her genitals and inner thighs, was damaged, and the skin was burned away to the layers of fatty tissue and muscle. The problem was that the coffee from McDonald’s was between 180 and 190 degrees (“The McDonald’s hot coffee case,” n.d.). Despite the fact that over seven hundred people were also damaged by a spilled beverage bought from McDonald’s, and coffee served by other companies was thirty to forty degrees colder, the company continued refusing to change its policy.
Mrs. Liebeck spent a significant amount of money on her treatment. She offered the company to settle the case for $20,000 so that she could cover her lost income and medical expenses (Burtka, n.d.). However, McDonald’s refused to pay the woman; the restaurant insisted that it was only Mrs. Liebeck’s guilt, and their coffee was of average temperature. When the company offered no more than $800, the woman decided to go to court.
The judge supported Mrs. Liebeck and was upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to change its policy. According to researchers, “the jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly” (“The McDonald’s hot coffee case,” n.d., para. 6). Moreover, the court ordered the company to award Liebeck the equivalent of two-day coffee sales revenue and consider changing the temperature of the coffee they serve.
This tort case has a rather significant influence on businesses in general. It proves the importance of adjusting companies’ policies according to the needs and desires of their customers. This is especially crucial when it comes to the health and safety of visitors. The reluctance of organizations to change their policies even when some rules result in people getting damaged can lead to adverse consequences. The particular organization that may be influenced by this case is Burger King because sometimes it serves coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees. Since such temperature is rather dangerous for people and may cause severe damages, the restaurant should consider changing its policy before someone gets hurt and goes to toe court.
References
Burtka, A. T. (n.d.). Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The hot coffee case. American Museum of Tort Law.
Business tort litigation. (n.d.). Business Trial Group.
The McDonald’s hot coffee case. (n.d.). Consumer Attorneys of California.