Assessment Task #4: Liability for Spilt Coffee: A Double Latte!

Latte #1:

In 1992, a 70-year-old woman was severely burned when a cup of coffee she has just purchased at a
McDonald’s drive-through window spilled on her lap. She apparently held the cup between her legs and
tried to pry off the lid as she drove away. The coffee was hot enough (185 degrees) to cause a third-degree
burn that required skin grafts and long term medical care. A jury awarded this woman $2.86 million,
$160,000 for compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. There are questions in this case
like whether McDonald’s should be held liable for injuries. Was the restaurant negligent in serving such
hot coffee at a drive-through window? Was the consumer negligent in her own actions?

1. What facts would you want to know before whether this settlement was fair?
2. Should caveat emptor govern this situation? Why yes? Why not?
3. What do you think are the consequences of the jury’s decision?
4. How would you decide the case? State important principles involved, if you think there are any.

Latte #2:

In an interesting 2006 case with somewhat related facts, a woman was awarded more than $300,000 by a
jury when a Starbucks Coffee employee caused a cup of coffee to spill on to the woman’s foot. In fact, the
barista (the coffee server at Starbucks) slid the coffee toward the woman; the coffee slipped over the edge
of the counter; the top fell off and the coffee spilled onto the woman’s sneaker-covered foot. Her foot
suffered nerve damage from the scalding liquid. Starbucks’ public statement explained that, while it regrets
any injury to Griffin, “we do not believe we are responsible for the injury.”
5. What distinction between two cases do you see?
6. Is there any difference between the responsibility McDonald’s owes the woman in the first instance
and the responsibility Starbucks owes the woman in the second situation?
7. Are principles involved in the two cases different? Explain briefly.
8. What do you think are the consequences of the jury’s decision in this case.

Case #3:
You are offered a high-paying position in the marketing department of a tobacco company. Your first
assignment would be to design an advertising campaign that will influence the citizens of foreign countries,
especially their teenagers, to buy and smoke the company's cigarettes. You firmly believe the evidence that
smoking cigarettes can lead to life-threatening diseases.

9. Would you accept the position and agree to design the ad program anyway? (Yes or No ONLY)
10. Explain and justify your decision. (why Yes/ why Not)