WEEK 7

(image from: http://gbnbusiness.blogspot.com/2010/05/starbucks-sued-over-hot-tea.html)

       For this week, we had the debate about the Liebeck vs. McDonald's case wherein my group was the judge/jury. We started the introduction by stating the case and gave some questions. The situation was in 1992, Mrs. Liebeck bought a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru. She was with her grandson and they stopped in the parking lot of McDonald's where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees and removed the lid to add cream and sugar The cup tipped over and the coffee spilled on her lap. She was wearing sweat pants, which absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns and required skin grafts. She sued McDonald's and the jury awarded her with $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

       The debate started with the Liebeck side, they presented arguments about the burns that she suffered. About 6% of her body was damaged including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized  for eight days and underwent skin grafting. She also underwent debridement treatments and wanted McDonald's to settle it for $20,000 but the company refused.

     The McDonald's team argued that consumers know that coffee is hot and customers want it that way. The company admitted that they were unaware that customers could suffer third degree burns from the coffee. Also, there was a reminder on the side of the coffee cup that the coffee is hot.

       The opposing parties presented different arguments and evidences. The jury decided that McDonald's won because based the convincing arguments that the group presented.

    Based on our discussion in class, McDonald's could have just paid Liebeck the $20,000 and apologized to her. There would be less cost and damages. Also, serving hot coffee is part of the menu of McDonald's however, they set the temperature of their coffee so that customers would be satisfied with it. The company thinks that when customers get the coffee through the drive-thru it would take them 5-10 minutes before consuming the coffee. While for dine-in customers they would have to wait until their coffee cools a bit or becomes warm. This would also be a strategy for the company because even if they offer refillable coffee, time would be the variable. When the customers wait for a while to cool his/her coffee and this would take up time, making them refill less.

    In reality, the jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because they found her to be 20% at fault. Liebeck was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages.

   Discussing and debating about this case was very challenging. We had to listen and understand the arguments of the opposing parties and decide which we think is right. Personally, I think that Liebeck is at fault in the situation because she was the one who spilled the coffee on her lap. However, I also thought about the fact that the coffee was really hot, because of the injuries she suffered. I think that Liebeck could have just held the coffee in one hand and used the other hand to add the sugar and cream.  Another option was, she asked her grandson to hold the coffee thens she'll add the sugar and creamer or vice versa. What Liebeck did was terrifying because of the burns she suffered however, she is lucky that the jury abroad was fair enough to listen and consider her case.