Liebeck vs' McDonalds

1
Liebeck vs. McDonalds

• How Do you Like Your Coffee, or
• How Hot is Too Hot?

2
I. Negligence cause of action

• Stella Liebeck must show (1) duty, (2) breach of
  duty, (3) causation, (4) damages.
• Focus duty to warn that the coffee served by
  McDonalds can cause third degree burns

3
II. Third degree burns

• Debridement treatments for full thickness burns
  over 6 of her body
• Hospitalization of 8 days
• Medical expenses of at least 10,000
• Coffee at 180 degrees 2-7 seconds to cause
  third degree burns

4
III. McDonalds duty and breach of duty
negligence

• of previous coffee burn victims
• amount of compensation paid
• industry standard
• existence of warning on lid

5
IV. Liebecks Negligence

• Driver? No.
• Moving vehicle? No.
• Careless? Yes.
• Jury assigns 20 to Stella
• Jury assigns 80 to McDonalds

6
V. Contributory Negligence

• Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, S. Carolina
• Plaintiff whose negligence contributes to damages
  (injuries) may not recover anything from defendant

7
VI. Comparative Negligence

• Most other states
• Only if Plaintiffs negligence exceeds 50 is the
  plaintiff foreclosed from recovery.
• If Plaintiff is 40 negligent, and Defendant is
  60 negligent, Ps recovery will be reduced by
  40

8
VII. Comparative vs. Contributory

• Common law in most states (judicial decision)
• Statutory in some states
• California could change to contributory
  negligence

9
VIII. Choice of law Liebeck v. McDonalds

• Injury occurs in New Mexico. What if she is a
  California resident?
• Sues here. Whose law applies?
• State conflict of law principles common law
  decisions to insure fairly uniform application of
  the law.
• What if she sues in North Carolina (contributory
  negligence jurisdiction) for a similar accident
  in North Carolina? Different result no
  recovery.
• But if she is a N.C. resident whose accident
  occurs in N.M., she can recover.