Mcdonald’s Hot Coffee Case
In the McDonalds hot coffee case, it is evident that the company was negligent and reckless in selling coffee, which was very hot. They sold coffee that was thirty degrees higher than coffee sold in any other place. In addition, they were aware of the effects of such hot coffee. The label on their containers was very small and was not adequate to serve as a warning. Therefore, they neglected their mandate of safety before everything else.
McDonald’s had a mandate to serve coffee that was not too hot to prevent any form of damage to its customers. However, they went on to sell coffee, which was 180 degrees hot, and yet they were aware that such a hot liquid would cause third degrees burns if it spilled on someone. While the company claimed that most people did not drink the coffee immediately, thus giving the coffee time to cool, it was brought to light that they knew that most people tend to drink the coffee immediately while driving. Thus, it is a clear indication of intentional negligence and breach of duty on their part.
The defendant caused a lot of harm to the plaintiff since breaching their duty they indirectly and majorly caused Stella Liebeck 16% burns in her body, with around six percent being third-degree burns (Lee, 2020). The plaintiff spent a week in the hospital, and her medical bill accumulated to almost ten thousand dollars, which was too much for a 79-year-old woman that had retired from service. The defendant also refused to have an out of court settlement with the plaintiff in the case.
The defendant had a responsibility to compensate the plaintiff due to the harm they had brought her. The jury decided that McDonald’s was 80% responsible for Stella’s injuries and ordered them to give her one hundred thousand dollars in compensation for damages and four hundred and eighty thousand US dollars in punitive damages (Hartigan, Sava, & Ostas, 2014). Both parties appealed the decision where both decided to settle for an out of court settlement, which is said to be less than five hundred thousand dollars.
The McDonald did not pass the ‘smell test’ as per the social media model. It is based on the fact that they only went through the first three steps of the eight-step process ethical decision-making process and neglected the remaining five stages. It is apparent that from the information they had gathered the coffee being dangerously hot and that they were seven hundred cases in which people reported the coffee to be hot. However, the company did not consider applying the right models or even evaluate its current model and apply even a little change. Therefore, it is seen when the McDonald’s quality manager admitted that although they knew their coffee was scalding, they had no intention of making it moderately hot.
While this case was an example of justice being served to the plaintiff, it gained much popularity since most people felt that the jury’s decision to award the plaintiff a lot of money in punitive charges. Although the charges were reduced, the cost was still very high, which forces most governments and courts to evaluate the punitive damages.