Overview of Tort Law and Intentional Torts Assignment
Barbara A Fuller
Liberty University
GOVT280_B01_202340
Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams
08/28/2023
Overview of Tort Law and Intentional Torts Assignment
A tort is an act or omission that causes injury or harm to another. This is considered a
civil wrong and when justice is sought the courts can impose liability. For the purpose of torts,
“"injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a loss or detriment
in fact that an individual suffers.” (Cornel Law,2023) The goal of tort law is to provide relief to
injured parties for harm caused by others. Torts often shift the burden of loss from the party who
was injured to the party who is better suited to bear the loss. Parties seeking closure through tort
law will ask for damages in the form of monetary compensation or restitution.
The case in question involved 79-year-old Stella Liebeck. She was traveling with her
grandson, and they stopped at a McDonald’s drive through to get a cup of coffee. After
purchasing the coffee, her grandson stops so she could add the coffee creamer and sugar to the
cup. When she placed the cup, cut coffee between her legs, and took off the lid it spilled the hot
coffee all over her lap. What ensued next was that she suffered burns to her thighs, her groin,
buttocks, and genital area. These burns were reported as full thickness burns covering 6 percent
of her body. And she was required to stay in the hospital for eight days for treatment that
included debridement and local wound care and some skin grafts on her legs. When she was
finally released. Liebeck had about $20,000 worth of bills unpaid from her insurance, so she
went to McDonald's, and she asked them to take care of that payment. When McDonald's
decided that they were not going to entertain Miss Liebeck. Their unwise decision caused Ms.
Liebeck to retain an attorney.
Miss Liebeck's attorneys had discovered that between 1982 to 1992, McDonald's had
faced more than 700 claims from people who had similar burns from their coffee. Just like
Liebeck. They admitted that they kept the temperature at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit because
they said that it gave a better taste. A scientist who testified stated that such hot temperatures
would cause severe burns to skin between two and seven seconds. It was also discovered that in
other fast-food restaurants they kept their coffee at a temperature between 135 to 148 degrees.
That is a significant difference when you remember that McDonald’s keeps theirs between 180-
190 degrees. Since McDonald's wanted that better taste. They were held liable because they did
not bother to heed the warnings to change the temperature. They also apparently did not have a
warning of how hot the coffee was on the sides of their cups. McDonald's knew how hot their
coffee was and could potentially cause burns because it was so hot. They were negligent in not
reducing the temperature of their coffee. Even though they did not cause the coffee to spill on
Ms. Liebeck, they were responsible for keeping coffee so hot, especially after having so many
complaints.
In conclusion, Miss Leibach was awarded damages because the coffee that she received
from McDonald's was maintained at a temperature that could create burns on the skin. She was
criticized for frivolously Suing McDonald’s because they were a large corporation. What this
case did due, was cause a major tort reform for cases going forward, holding companies liable
for injuries caused by their products.
Refrences
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, WEX, Tort
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex
Burtka ,Allison Torres , Liebeck v. McDonald’s, The American Museum of Tort Law
For additional information on APA Style formatting, please consult the APA Style Manual, 7th Edition.
