In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck and her grandson purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant drive-thru in New Mexico. After paying for the coffee, Ms. Liebeck’s placed the cup of coffee between her legs and removed the lid so she could add cream and sugar to the coffee, but the liquid inside the cup spilled out over her legs and into her lap resulting in 3rd degree burns. How is it possible a cup of coffee could cause such extensive damage? During litigation, McDonald’s admitted they served their coffee at 185 degrees F, well in excess of the 155-degree threshold at which burns would occur. Moreover, internal memorandum from the McDonald’s corporation seemed to indicate many other people had complained about burns and that McDonald’s chose not to change the …show more content…
One of the first considerations in this case is Caveat Emptor, and it’s effect on liability. Caveat Emptor, or the colloquialism “buyer beware” is the idea that it is the responsibility of the purchaser of a buyer of a good or service to determine its value and fitness for use. If we use this principle to determine responsibility, we can clearly see that Stella Liebeck alone is responsible for her