Please read the following study case \"Hot Coffee\" thenanswer:
In a world of get-rich-quick schemes, few are mentioned morefrequently than lawsuits. One of the reasons is the infamousMcDonald’s coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald’sRestaurants). This is what happened in 1992 in Albuquerque,New Mexico. Stella Liebeck, seventy-nine, was riding in a cardriven by her grandson. They stopped at a McDonald’s drive-through,where she purchased a Styrofoam cup of coffee. Wanting to add creamand sugar, she squeezed the cup between her knees and pulled offthe plastic lid. The entire thing spilled back into her lap. Thesearing liquid left her with extensive third-degree burns. Eightdays of hospitalization—which included skin grafts—wererequired.
Initially, she sought $20,000 from McDonald’s, which was more orless the cost of her medical bills. McDonald’s refused. They wentto court. There it came to light that about seven hundred claimshad been made by consumers between 1982 and 1992 for similarincidents. This seems to indicate that McDonald’s knew—or at leastshould have known—that the hot coffee was a problem.
Most of the rest of the case turned around temperaturequestions. McDonald’s admitted that they served their coffee at 185degrees, which will burn the mouth and throat and is about 50degrees higher than typical homemade coffee. More importantly,coffee served at temperatures up to 155 degrees won’t cause burns,but the danger rises abruptly with each degree above that limit. Sowhy did McDonald’s serve it so hot? Most customers, the companyclaimed, bought on the way to work or home and would drink it onarrival. The high temperature would keep it fresh until then.Unfortunately, internal documents showed that McDonald’s knew theircustomers intended to drink the coffee in the car immediately afterpurchase. Next, McDonald’s asserted that their customers wantedtheir coffee hot. The restaurant conceded, however, that customerswere unaware of the serious burn danger and that no adequatewarning of the threat’s severity was provided.
Finally, the jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatorydamages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (about two days worthof McDonalds’ coffee sales). The judge, however, reduced the $2.7million to $480,000. McDonald’s threatened to appeal, and the twosides eventually came to a private settlement agreement.ConsumerAttorneys of California, “The Actual Facts About the McDonalds’Coffee Case,†The ‘Lectric Law Library, 1995, accessed June 2,2011, http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm.
Questions:
- What does caveat emptor mean? According to thisdoctrine, who is responsible for Stella Liebeck’s burns?Explain.
- Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it moredifficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
- One aspect of the caveat emptor doctrine is that it maximizesrespect for the consumer as an independent and autonomous decider.Could that be a reason for affirming that a seventy-nine-year-oldis a better candidate than most for a caveat emptor ethics ofconsumption?
- In general terms, what does it mean to claim that an implicitcontract arises around a transaction? How does that contractprotect the consumer?
