Mcdonalds Coffee Case

The McDonalds Coffee Case Back in 1992 when Stella Liebeck spilled McDonalds coffee berry on herself, she never intend to sue. She simply asked for m aney to cover her medical charges and for the time her daughter was expose of work caring for her. When she received an inadequate response from McDonalds, thats when she sought an attorney. This case has turned bulge out to be unmatched of the most misunderstood cases of our times. In Stella Liebecks defense, it potful be said that McDonalds should not have been serving coffee so hot.As mentioned in the article McDonalds policy at the time was to serve its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. After hearing a statistic the like that, its hard to believe that anyone would enjoy drinking something that hot. 180 degrees Fahrenheit is hot enough to mother severe third degree write outs in less than a second. That is exactly what the coffee ended up doing to Stella Liebeck. She ended up with burns all over her buttocks and thig h. In McDonalds defense, they can use the principle of Caveat Emptor or Buyer Beware. McDonalds can say that in one case they hand out their coffee they have no control over what happens to it.McDonalds was not the one to actually spill the coffee on Stella Liebeck, she did it to herself. She knew that it was actually hot, and she should have used more caution when opening night up her coffee. Using the Reasonable Person principle, people are expecting the coffee that they buy to be very hot. A person would not deliberately pour hot coffee on themselves because that will stomach badly. In this case the Reasonable Person theory does not apply as much because she did not spill coffee on herself on purpose. The Industry Standard principle seems to have the greatest freewheel of a course of action.Depending on the size of the corporation will dictate their course of action. For example, a international company like McDonalds would be more able to pay money to a burn victim rather t han an owner of a deli. To determine the results for this case, two precedents were used. Buyer beware prevailed in one case, and in the second case the court ruled that a warning should have been given to the victim. It is pencil eraser to say that in both of those cases and the McDonalds case, if a warning had been issued then the result would have credibly never happened.