1
McDonald’s Coffee Assignment
Amanda Rhodes
Liberty University
GOV 280-B02: Tort Law
Professor Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams
January 23, 2023
2
McDonald’s Coffee Assignment
Introduction
The case of Lieback v. McDonald’s was one that gained a large amount of media attention
for quite some time. The ruling was deemed fatuous by many who were not privy to the facts and
evidence surrounding the judgment amount awarded to Lieback. The evidence provided at trial
proved the appropriateness of the judgment awarded to Lieback and those facts will be discussed
below.
Assessment of the Judgment
As stated above the appropriateness of this judgment lies within the facts. Firstly, ,
Lieback was 79 when she suffered debilitating injuries from the hot coffee that spilled on her lap
resulting in multiple surgeries, followed by an eight day hospital stay (Weiman, 2017). Secondly,
in the testimony of McDonald’s assurance manager, it was stated that McDonald’s had a standard
temperature on their coffee pot of 185 degrees and further went on to testify that temperature was
indeed a burn threat for food or liquid to be served (Weiman, 2017). Lastly, solidifying the
appropriateness of this judgment is the blatant disregard for the hundreds of complaints received
by McDonald’s regarding those who sustained burns from their coffee between the years of
1982-1992.
McDonald’s negligence, and the pain and suffering Lieback endured, could have been
rectified after the first initial complaint with a warning on its product regarding the hot
temperatures, and/or a simple lowering of the temperature in an effort to avoid further injury.
Additionally, the company’s refusal to “raise its compensation offer above $800.00” sent a
3
message of McDonald’s being unsympathetic to the pain, suffering, and extensive recovery
Leiback endured (FindLaw Staff, 2022).
Conclusion
In conclusion, and given the facts in the case, Weiman certainly had an interest in having
the damages she endured corrected, and this protection of interest is a significant purpose of tort
law (Edwards, 2016). Yes, accidents happen every day and, at times, are no fault of anyone, but
in this instance, the neglect and poor decision making on behalf of McDonald’s was done in bad
faith and could have been classified as an intentional tort (Edwards, 2016). This case
additionally weighed heavy on the product liability aspect given the fact that McDonalds was not
cautious in its product and in turn caused severe injury to a consumer. (Edwards, 2016). While it
was an expensive lesson for McDonald’s, the judge and jury were correct in their decision to
compensate Weiman for her damages.
4
References
Edwards, J.S. (2016). Tort Law, 6th Ed. Cengage Learning.
Weiman, D. (2018) “The McDonald’s Coffee Case.” Huffpost. Retreived from
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-mcdonalds-coffee-case_b_14002362
d b
Staff, Findlaw. (2022, December 16). The McDonald's Coffee Cup case: Separating mcfacts
from mcfiction. Findlaw. Retrieved from
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-
separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html
