As per the warranty of fitness, if a seller is cognizant of a buyer’s intended purpose for their product, the seller must guarantee that the product they sell is fit for such a purpose.Īs it applies to the case at hand, Liebeck’s claims were twofold: first, that she had been sold defective coffee that could not serve its expected or normal purpose, and second, that such a defect had caused her severe injury.ĭespite popular belief, these claims were well-founded and backed by the facts of the case. Under the implied warranty of merchantability, a vendor assumes liability for a defective product that cannot be used for its normal purpose. Liebeck sued on the grounds that McDonald’s knowingly sold a defective product that violated the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness as per Sections 2-314 and 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code. When Liebeck’s legal team demanded $20,000 to cover her medical expenses, McDonald’s countered, offering a mere $800 and sending the case to trial. Liebeck would continue to suffer from chronic pain and disability for the rest of her life. Liebeck was immediately taken to a hospital where she remained for a week, undergoing multiple skin graft surgeries, debridement, and whirlpool therapy. While removing the lid to add cream and sugar, Liebeck spilled the coffee on her lap, sending her body into immediate shock and covering her thighs and pelvic area with third degree burns. Since the car did not have cup holders, Liebeck placed her takeout cup in between her legs. In reality, Liebeck was in the passenger seat of a motionless vehicle. These simple contextual facts already contradict the poisoned popular narrative, which often holds that Liebeck sat in the driver’s seat of a moving vehicle when she spilled her coffee due to negligence. After receiving their food, along with one hot coffee, the two pulled into a parking spot to eat. On a February morning in 1992 Albuquerque, 79-year old widow Stella Liebeck sat in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car in the McDonald’s drive-thru ordering a meal. A thorough assessment of the case reveals that Liebeck was not a trickster but a victim, and McDonald’s was not innocent but rather egregiously culpable for Liebeck’s burns and subsequent suffering.įirst, it is essential to define the verifiable facts of the case, as well as how they differ from the common narrative. How could somebody sue a franchise because the hot coffee they ordered was hot? However, the “hot coffee case” is as infamous as it is misunderstood. Liebeck capitalized on a silly mistake to swindle the fast food giant out of millions. To an uninitiated observer, it may seem that Ms. Now known as the “hot coffee case,” Liebeck’s action is chastised by many as an egregious example of a frivolous lawsuit. In 1992, Stella Liebeck sued McDonald’s after suffering third-degree burns from spilled takeout coffee that she had ordered from the drive-through. Andrew Sturgeon is a junior in the College, where he majors in Government and Psychology. Born and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, Andrew is an avid athlete, gym goer, and board game enthusiast. He is currently a Blog Writer for the Georgetown University Undergraduate Law Review.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |