Negligence and the Hot Coffee Case: Examining McDonalds Duty of Care

Abstract

[Name] In chapter 5 (BULE 302/303), a tort remains associated with a breach of a legal duty that leads a person or property to experience legal injury. Such legal injuries lead the plaintiff to sue the defendants for damages. Upon success, compensatory and punitive damages become settled through a deserving amount as expressed in Liebeck V. McDonalds case (Hot Coffee 13:45). Based on Liebeck narrations of Hot Coffee (1:00-37, and 5:58-6:05), it is clear that she experienced a tort of negligence since McDonald has received over 700 hot beverages and drink complaints without expressing any attempts to address their service delivery and concern to their target customers (Hot Coffee 10:48). In chapters 5-4, a tort of negligence occurs when the plaintiff suffers injuries due to the defendants’ failure to live up to the required duty of care. Further concern by the plaintiff becomes apparent when the plaintiff representative humbly requests McDonalds' to fix their machines producing abnormal hot beverages not fit for abrupt human consumption, which the company declined, leaving the plaintiff with no option other than suing the company for damages (Hot Coffee 7:15). Duty of care serves as the central concept to the tort of negligence (Chapter 5-4a). McDonald failed to express even with a consistent request by the plaintiff representative in settlement of the plaintiff's rising hospital bills (Hot Coffee7: 00-09). The defendant failed to accept that they owed the plaintiff a duty of care thus breached the duty. However, the third-degree burn experienced by the plaintiff was a clear sign of legally recognizable injuries entitled to legal care (Hot Coffee 6:33 and Chapter 5-4a). Initially, the public critiqued Liebeck's approach of suing McDonald, arguing that she also expressed some degree of ignorance since she was driving while handling the hot coffee (Hot...