Stefanie Carias
MGT 240
Professor Smith
09/21/16
Reaction Paper 1: Liebeck Vs. McDonalds
On February of 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was a passenger in her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by the McDonalds Coffee she ordered through a McDonalds drive-thru. When Liebeck received her order, her grandson who was the driver, pulled his car forward and stopped, allowing his grandmother to add sugar and cream to her coffee. While parked, Liebeck put the cup of coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the Styrofoam cup, which led to her spilling the coffee onto her lap and causing third degree burns.. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants on the day of the incident that absorbed the …show more content…
Coffee is meant to be hot and it is expected to burn if it is spilled on any part of the body. Discussions of coffee and its purpose rose all around the country and Liebeck was not seen as a victim. The media always over exaggerates on certain situations so once Ms. Liebeck brought this case to court anyone who could read believed what the media told them. Speculations of the car being in movement arose pointing the finger at Liebeck for suffering third degree burns. The media had its fun with this case. As a reader who knew nothing about the case one could have believed that Liebeck was at fault. After learning all of the facts and realizing that the coffee that was purchased from a McDonalds drive thru was outrageously hot, almost near boiling point, as a consumer one would not want to receive a drink that hot. McDonalds was aware of its coffee burning others but did nothing about it because the amount of incidents was less than 1% of the total amount of coffee’s they sell in a year. It is not so much that McDonald’s violated any duty to the public in general because they were selling hot coffee, as they should be. It was more of a case of awareness to the public and other companies about the dangers of hot drinks and to pay attention to consumer
MGT 240
Professor Smith
09/21/16
Reaction Paper 1: Liebeck Vs. McDonalds
On February of 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was a passenger in her grandson’s car when she was severely burned by the McDonalds Coffee she ordered through a McDonalds drive-thru. When Liebeck received her order, her grandson who was the driver, pulled his car forward and stopped, allowing his grandmother to add sugar and cream to her coffee. While parked, Liebeck put the cup of coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the Styrofoam cup, which led to her spilling the coffee onto her lap and causing third degree burns.. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants on the day of the incident that absorbed the …show more content…
Coffee is meant to be hot and it is expected to burn if it is spilled on any part of the body. Discussions of coffee and its purpose rose all around the country and Liebeck was not seen as a victim. The media always over exaggerates on certain situations so once Ms. Liebeck brought this case to court anyone who could read believed what the media told them. Speculations of the car being in movement arose pointing the finger at Liebeck for suffering third degree burns. The media had its fun with this case. As a reader who knew nothing about the case one could have believed that Liebeck was at fault. After learning all of the facts and realizing that the coffee that was purchased from a McDonalds drive thru was outrageously hot, almost near boiling point, as a consumer one would not want to receive a drink that hot. McDonalds was aware of its coffee burning others but did nothing about it because the amount of incidents was less than 1% of the total amount of coffee’s they sell in a year. It is not so much that McDonald’s violated any duty to the public in general because they were selling hot coffee, as they should be. It was more of a case of awareness to the public and other companies about the dangers of hot drinks and to pay attention to consumer