Case 21: McDonald’s: The Coffee Spill Heard ’Round the World
1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incidents? Was the lawsuit
“frivolous” as some people thought, or serious business regarding safety and treatment of
consumers?
These cases are about product safety and responsiveness to consumers. In its desire to please
consumers with hot coffee, McDonald’s has created a product that must be handled carefully.
The important question is, regarding the spilled coffee, who is ultimately responsible,
McDonald’s, Ms. Liebeck, or both? Regardless of whether one views the lawsuit as frivolous or
2. What are McDonalds’s social (economic, legal, and ethical) responsibilities toward
consumers in the Liebeck case and the other cases? What are consumers’ responsibilities when
they buy a product such as hot coffee or hot hamburgers? How does a company give consumers
what they want and yet protect them at the same time?
Before learning of the jury’s award in this case, one might have argued that McDonald’s had a
responsibility to sell coffee at a temperature at which consumers wanted, but that the product had
to be perceived as reasonably safe. After the award, it seems that McDonald’s has gotten the
message that it, as well as the consumer, must also be responsible for consumer carelessness with
the product. Thus, the warning on the cup was not seen as adequate protection for the consumer.
3. What are the arguments supporting McDonald’s position in the Liebeck case? What are the
arguments supporting Liebeck’s position? Should McDonald’s have settled this case when it had
a chance?
The major argument on McDonalds’s part was that it was Liebeck’s carelessness that caused the
burn. McDonald’s argues that its “Caution: Contents Hot!” warning is adequate. Liebeck’s major
4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you most likely have
supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the pickle burn case?
This should be an interesting question for students to discuss. It is likely that most students will
side with McDonald’s as was demonstrated in the public opinion polls. The pickle burn case, on
5. What are the similarities and differences between the coffee burn cases and the pickle burn
case? Does one represent a more serious threat to consumer harm? What should McDonald’s,
and other fast food restaurants, do about hot food, such as hamburgers, when consumers are
injured?
One might argue that wrestling with the coffee cup between one’s thighs is not the way the
container or its contents were intended to be used and/or consumed. The pickle, on the other
hand, was in the sandwich that was being eaten. In both cases, excessive heat caused physical
6. Why did Stella Liebeck win this case and what implications does it pose for businesses’
responsibility toward consumers?
The jury found Stella Liebeck 20% liable for her injury and McDonald’s 80% liable, finding that
the company had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct. McDonald’s knew
7. What is your assessment of the “Stella Awards”? Is this making light of a problem that is too
serious?
I think that the Stella Awards simply reflect the public’s general opinion regarding these issues—
that consumers are at least partially responsible for injuries that arise in these types of cases.
8. Do we now live in a society where businesses are responsible for customers’ accidents or
carelessness in using products? We live in a society that is growing older. Does this fact place a
special responsibility on merchants who sell products to senior citizens?
Companies now have to have a broader view of their social responsibilities. Companies will now
have to assume that they may be held accountable for customers’ carelessness. In light of this