Free Essay

Tort Law

In: Business and Management

Submitted By jboogie305
Words 3592
Pages 15
Jerome Fulton, Jr.
BUL 4310
Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants
July 7th, 2014

Introduction Corporate giants are known for their strong legal defense teams, their shrewd business practices, and their strong presence in politics. In the United States, its adversarial court system allows corporate giants to have the upper hand when faced with litigation. In an adversarial court system, the stronger the defense (lawyers) is, the stronger the case. One extreme case in the American court system that deflects corporate giants’ upper hand in the United States’ adversarial system, is a 1994 “frivolous lawsuit,” Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant. McDonald’s is known for its fast-food and joy that it brings to children with its Happy Meals. However, in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant case, McDonald’s was known as an inconsiderate corporate giant whose nonchalance cost McDonald’s nearly $3 million. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant is a case that was a media train in the 1990s and misconceptions about the case filled the airways.
Case Overview Why should your favorite quick service restaurant be responsible for serving your favorite breakfast beverage, coffee, just how you like it? Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant involved a then 79 year-old, Stella Liebeck, who purchased a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1992 (“McDonald’s,” 2002). “Liebeck tried to hold the cup of coffee between her knees while removing the lid; however, the cup tipped over and the hot coffee burned her.” While there has been speculation that Mrs. Liebeck was driving the car at the time the coffee spilled on her; however, that was not true at all (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). These reports were used to dramatize the case and deem it as a frivolous lawsuit. Mrs. Liebeck’s grandson was the driver on the day of this incident, and when Mrs. Liebeck attempted to open the coffee lid, the car was not in motion. Because of the spilling of the hot coffee, Mrs. Liebeck “suffered third-degree burns to over six percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas” (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). The severe burns caused Mrs. Liebeck to spend eight days in the hospital, and she accrued nearly $11,000 in medical fees (Adelman, 2010 - 2014); however, McDonald’s refused to pay Mrs. Liebeck $20,000 ($11,000 in medical fees and $9,000 in other fees) and offered Mrs. Liebeck a measly $800 instead. Thus, Mrs. Liebeck decided to sue.
Stella Liebeck Twenty-two years ago, back in 1992, Stella Liebeck was a 79 year-old retired sales clerk who decided to buy a 49-cent cup of coffee from a local New Mexican McDonald’s (Adelman, 2010 – 2014). While adding sugar and cream to her coffee, the coffee spilled and she suffered severe burns on sensitive areas on her body. Upon being denied compensation by McDonald’s for her injuries, Mrs. Liebeck took it to court, represented by S. Reed Morgan (“McDonald’s,” 2002), and sparked much controversy over the outcome of the case. Ten years after successfully winning her lawsuit, Mrs. Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at 91 years-old (“Real Stella,” 2002 – 2014).
Misconceptions about the Case In American culture, the Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant is deemed as one of the most frivolous lawsuits of all time due to many misconceptions (Fuchs, 2013). One of the biggest misconceptions about the case is this was the first time that McDonald’s was involved in a hot coffee incident. According to Andrea Gerlin, Staff Reporter for the Wall Street Journal, in 1990, “a California woman suffered second- and third-degree burns after a McDonald’s employee spilled hot coffee into her vehicle” (Gerlin, 1994). Instead of taking this to trial as McDonalds did in Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant case, McDonalds settled out of court for $230,000 (Gerlin, 1994). Also, there were over 700 claims of people being burned by coffee between the years of 1982 to 1992 (“Actual Facts,” 1995 - 2013). Thus, McDonald’s was informed of the dangers its coffee posed to consumers. Another misconception about this case is that Mrs. Liebeck actually took home the $2.9 million. According to Bonnie Bertram, writer at the New York Times, Mrs. Liebeck was awarded $2.9 million by the jury, but the judge reduced the award to about $500,000 (Bertram, 2013). After the judge awarded Mrs. Liebeck almost $500,000, “Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a post-verdict settlement conference which resulted in a settlement of the case for an undisclosed amount” (Cain, 17). In addition to the superfluous $2.9 million judgment, many sources have erroneously reported that Mrs. Liebeck was driving at the time of the coffee spilling on her; however, “she was in the passenger seat of a parked car when she was scalded” (Bertram, 2013).
Facts about the Case While there has been much speculation about this case, the facts surrounding this case change the way it is viewed in American culture. As heard in court, McDonald’s served coffee that ranged from temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, which would burn the mouth and throat of a customer as stated by a McDonald’s quality assurance manager (“The McDonald’s”). Because of the severe burning (third-degree burns) from the coffee, Mrs. Liebeck spent eight days in the hospital and underwent skin grafts and debridement treatments8 (Cain, 15). McDonald’s was not found 100% at fault for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Of the almost $500,0007 awarded to Mrs. Liebeck, $200,000 of that judgment was awarded for compensatory damages; however, that $200,000 was reduced to $160,000 because the court found Mrs. Liebeck 20 percent at fault (Dedman, 2014). McDonald’s was no stranger to complaints of its coffee being too scorching hot. Over a ten year period before this case, McDonald’s awarded more than $500,000 resulting from individuals being injured by its blazing hot coffee. All of the $500,000 awards were settled outside of court, but McDonald’s took a different approach with Mrs. Liebeck (Gerlin, 1994). Before the court proceedings, McDonald’s had many opportunities to settle out of court; however, McDonald’s refused to do so. Even during the court proceedings, Judge Scott (judge presiding over the case) ordered a mediation session between the two parties, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s. During the mediation, the mediator suggested that McDonald’s settle for $225,000 (Gerlin, 1994). McDonald’s refused the recommendation from the mediator and ended up paying more than twice the amount (the $480,000 judgment) that was recommended by the mediator.
Judgment in the Case When America found out that Stella Liebeck was awarded nearly $3 million from McDonald’s for spilling coffee on herself, the nation was stunned. However, the jury awarded Mrs. Liebeck $2.9 million and the judge substantially reduced that amount to $480,000 (“Legal Myths,” 1999). The question still remains, Should McDonald’s have been held liable for the $480,000 judgment? The answer to this question is Yes. The logic behind my answer is that McDonald’s was aware of the dangers that its hot coffee posed to customers and did nothing about it. Also, McDonald’s had the opportunity to pay Mrs. Liebeck a mere $20,000; however, being the corporate giant that McDonald’s is, McDonald’s thought that no jury would find them liable for the severe burns that Mrs. Liebeck received because of their strong legal team and the “facts” surrounding the case. Only one-third of the $480,000 judgment awarded to Mrs. Liebeck was related to compensatory damages. The remainder of the award was due to McDonald’s callous conduct (“McDonald’s,” 2002). Thus, the majority of the award was not based on Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries (held at fault for 20 percent of her injuries). The majority of the award was based on McDonald’s failure to address the issue and take corrective action regarding the temperature of the coffee. McDonald’s had a reasonable amount of time to find a solution to alleviate the amount of coffee-burning incidents that occurred among its customers since there were more than 700 reports of coffee burns prior to the plaintiff’s injuries (Gerlin, 1994). Also, during the court proceedings, Mr. Appleton, a McDonald’s executive stated, “There are more serious dangers in restaurants” and “McDonald’s didn’t intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures” (Gerlin, 1994). Thus, McDonald’s was still going to operate in a way that potentially harmed its customers. Mrs. Liebeck should not have been awarded nearly $3 million for her injuries, as the judge drastically reduced that award. However, she deserved the $480,000 that the judge awarded her because her initial reaction was not to accumulate wealth and she sustained severe injuries to extremely sensitive areas on her body. Initially, Mrs. Liebeck requested $20,000; however, McDonald’s did not want to properly compensate Mrs. Liebeck for her injuries. McDonald’s did not have any concern for Mrs. Liebeck or any other customers being injured from its coffee; thus, Mrs. Liebeck’s judgment was justified.

McDonald’s Post Case According to industry officials, they speculated that McDonald’s would not change any of its company practices involving the temperatures of coffee (Gerlin, 1994). Though McDonald’s serves coffee that can potentially cause customers to suffer third-degree burns, McDonald’s sells a billion cups a year8 (Gerlin, 1994). Selling a billion cups of a hot coffee a year, back in 1992 and probably even more today, explains why McDonald’s would not be inclined to change the way that it serves its coffee. Since Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant case, there has not been any high profile lawsuits against McDonald’s regarding coffee burns. Does this mean that no one else is being burned by McDonald’s scorching hot coffee? No. McDonald’s has probably learned a lesson by taking these types of cases to court and now is settling outside of court, the more economical thing to do. According to Stuart Pfeifer, author at the LA Times, Twenty years after Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit (January 2014), Paulette Carr, resident of Los Angeles, California, filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s citing that she was burned on January 12, 2012, by a cup of McDonald’s coffee because the coffee lid was improperly placed on the coffee cup (Pfeifer, 2014). As a McDonald’s employee handed the coffee to Carr, the top of the coffee fell off of the coffee and spilled all over Carr (Pfeifer, 2014). Carr’s lawsuit against McDonald’s has failed to garner the attention that Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit garnered. McDonald’s has declined to comment on the case.
McDonald’s Alternatives Though McDonald’s makes millions of dollars selling scorching hot coffee to millions of customers. McDonald’s has created an alternative to your traditional hot coffee, iced coffee and Frappuccinos. Circa 2007, McDonald’s started selling iced coffee (“Coffee Clash,” 2007). Now, customers who want the same coffee effects, but do not want the risk of being burned by the hot coffee, have the option of purchasing iced coffee. Though McDonald’s addition of iced coffee and Frappuccinos is not a result of coffee burn torts and is only an attempt for McDonald’s to gain market share in the coffee industry, customers now have the option to safer morning beverages.
Precedence in America’s Court System Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant set precedence in the American court system. The facts surrounding the case did not leave as much precedence as the misconceptions surrounding the case did. This case set precedence for McDonald’s and other large corporate fast-food restaurants. This case showed that it may be wiser to settle for a small amount out of court instead of paying large judgments and incurring huge legal fees. The erroneous judgment of nearly $3 million set precedence for tort reforms in the American legal system. This case made it harder for citizens to be fully compensated for the torts of other corporations. Since this case, there have not been many mainstream cases that have stemmed from the torts of a fast-food restaurant. This is probably due to fast-food companies settling outside of court.
Tort Reform Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant has been the poster child for corporation’s tort reform (Carlson, 2011). Misconceptions about the judgments and facts of this case have caused a tort reform movement because America thought that a woman received nearly $3 million dollars for spilling coffee on herself, and people just did not know the facts of the case. Corporations have used this case to limit citizens’ abilities to be compensated for the torts of corporations. The media sensationalized and spread many misconceptions about Liebeck v McDonald’s, which caused many people to be falsely in favor of tort reform. Tort reformists are in favor of capping the amounts awarded for people who file a civil lawsuit (Rakoczy, 2013). If you found out that an 80 year-old woman received $3 million for spilling coffee on herself, would you be in favor of tort reform? Yes; however, Mrs. Liebeck did not receive any amount close to $3 million, and she only received $160,000 related to her injuries. The media and tort reformists used Mrs. Liebeck’s lawsuit as leverage to encourage the public to be in favor of tort reform. Tort reform limits a patient to be fully compensated for the agony and injuries that he or she incurs. This violates constitutional rights (Rakoczy,2013).
Adversarial Court System The adversarial court system is usually in favor of the party with the “strongest” defense team. However, this proved ironic in the Liebeck v McDonald’s case. McDonald’s refused to settle out of court after a court mediator’s recommendation to do so. McDonald’s relied on the adversarial court system to see it to victory in this case. McDonald’s is a multi-billion dollar company that can hire the best legal team in the world. McDonald’s thought that its legal team could prove that it was not liable for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. McDonald’s attempt to take advantage of America’s adversarial court system failed and cost McDonald’s over a half of a million dollars. Mrs. Liebeck’s legal team proved to be better in proving that McDonald’s was responsible for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries and prevailed in the adversarial court system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurant has served as one of America’s most frivolous lawsuits of all time. However, this was not the case at all. Misconceptions by the media have caused this case to be sensationalized and landmarked under fictional pretenses. McDonald’s had the opportunity to settle out of court with Mrs. Liebeck for an immaterial amount of $20,000; however, McDonald’s arrogance, belief in America’s adversarial court system, and nonchalance for its customer’s welfare caused it to payout more than 25 times the original amount that Mrs. Liebeck requested. Before performing due diligence on this case, I believed that no one deserved $3 million for spilling coffee on him or herself. After researching this case, my belief remains unchanged. However, I learned that Mrs. Liebeck was not awarded $3 million and her judgment was necessary because of McDonald’s longstanding knowledge of the dangers of its hot coffee and its inaction to combat the problem. Because of the misconceptions about this case, Mrs. Liebeck is viewed as someone who took advantage of the legal system. In reality, McDonald’s decision to take this case to court and unwillingness to settle with Mrs. Liebeck, when it had made settlements of more than $500,000 ten years prior to this case, shows that McDonald’s was trying to take advantage of America’s adversarial court system, but it backfired.

Works Cited

"The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case." The Letric Law Library. 1995 - 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Adelman, Steven A. "The Modern Civil Justice System." Adelman Law Group. Adelman Law Group, PLLC, 2010 - 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.adelmanlawgroup.com/articles/justice-system.htm?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"Adversarial System." Princeton University. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Adversarial_system.html?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Bertram, Bonnie. "Storm Still Brews Over Scalding Coffee." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/booming/storm-still-brews-over-scalding-coffee.html?_r=1&>.
Cain, Kevin. "The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit." Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law: 14-19. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Carlson, Margaret. "Hot Coffee, Cold Cash and Torts: Margaret Carlson (Correct)." Bloomberg View. Bloomberg L.P., 14 July 2011. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2011-07-13/hot-coffee-cold-cash-and-the-tort-reform-con-margaret-carlson>.
"Coffee Clash: McDonald's Takes on Starbucks." NBC News11. Associated Press, 18 Nov. 2007. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837962/ns/business-us_business/t/coffee-clash-mcdonalds-takes-starbucks/?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Dedman, James M., IV. "Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants: The Original Coffee Product Liability Case." DRI Today. 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://dritoday.org/feature.aspx?id=661&_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Fuchs, Erin. "How A $2.9 Million Jury Verdict Over Spilled Coffee Became America's Most Misunderstood Story." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.businessinsider.com/retro-report-examines-stella-liebeck-case-2013-10?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Gerlin, Andrea. "How Hot Do You Like It?" The Wall Street Journal (1994): Sept. 1994. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case." Public Citizen. Public Citizen Inc., 30 Nov. 1999. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=785&_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
"McDonalds' Hot Coffee Case - Read the Facts NOT the Fiction." Texas Trial Lawyers Association. Center for Justice & Democracy, 2002. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=McDonaldsCoffeeCaseFacts>.
"The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case." Consumer Attorneys of California. Consumer Attorneys of California. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>.
Pfeifer, Stuart. "L.A. Woman Sues McDonald's over Hot Coffee, 20 Years after Huge Verdict." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 09 Jan. 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/09/business/la-fi-mo-la-woman-sues-mcdonalds-over-hot-coffee-20-years-after-huge-verdict-20140109?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.
Rakoczy, Christy. "The Arguments For and Against Tort Reform." The Legal Finance Journal. The Legal Finance Journal, 24 June 2013. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://legalfinancejournal.com/the-arguments-for-and-against-tort-reform/>.
"The "Real" Stella." Stella Awards. N.p., 2002 -2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html>.
"Tort Reform Law & Legal Definition." Tort Reform Law & Legal Definition. U.S. Legal, 2001 - 2014. Web. 07 July 2014. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tort-reform/?_sm_au_=iMVjsJ4PL70LVpPP>.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. According to Princeton University, “the adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law that relies on the contest between each advocate representing his or her party's positions and involves an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, trying to determine the truth of the case” (“Adversarial System”)
[ 2 ]. In actuality, Stella Liebeck received far less than $3 million. The actually amount will be disclosed later in the text.
[ 3 ]. Mrs. Liebeck was holding the cup of coffee between her knees because she was trying to add sugar and cream to her coffee.
[ 4 ]. Though only 6% of Mrs. Liebeck’s body suffered third-degree burns, 16% of her entire body was burned by the coffee spill.
[ 5 ]. Steven A. Adelman of the Adelman Law Group gives details on Mrs. Liebeck’s request for the small sum of money and also gives information on McDonald’s refusals to settle on numerous occasions
[ 6 ]. Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a post-verdict settlement because both parties attempted to appeal his verdict, and it would be easier to settle this case out of court.
[ 7 ]. According to Kevin G. Cain, contributor to the Journal of Consumer and Commercial Law, after the judge’s ruling, the two parties settled for approximately $600,000 (Cain, 17).
[ 8 ]. McDonald’s was found only 80% at fault for Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries.
[ 9 ]. McDonald’s has paid out over $500,000 in damages related to its coffee burning customers. Mrs. Liebeck only requested $20,000 for injuries. Yet, McDonald’s ended up paying more than the $500,000 than it had previously paid in out-of-court settlements to Mrs. Liebeck.
[ 10 ]. McDonald’s sold a billion cups of year. Therefore, McDonald’s made at least $590 million dollars a year selling coffee at 49 cents a cup.
[ 11 ]. McDonald’s started selling iced coffee three years after Mrs. Liebeck’s untimely death.
[ 12 ]. According to USLEGAL.COM, “Tort reform commonly refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis which place limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that may be awarded in personal injury lawsuits” (“Tort Reform Law”).
[ 13 ]. A woman receiving $3 million for spilling coffee is a much better story line than a woman received approximately $500,000 after only requesting $20,000 in medical expense from McDonald’s.
[ 14 ]. McDonald’s had a strong belief that the courts would dismiss this case despite resounding evidence that there had been a history of coffee burning incidents and McDonald’s “admitted” to being at fault to these torts by settling out of court with previous customer…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Tort Law Homework

...NEGLIGENCE Tort Law is a field that encompasses material of considerable breadth and diversity and whose existence, as a reflected in individual actions seeking civil redress for injuries nor arising out of contractual relations can be traced can be traced back to primitive societies. (White, 2003 p.23) A ‘tort’ is a Norman word for a ‘wrong’ but ‘torts’ have typically been distinguished from crimes and from ‘wrongs’ identified with contractual relations. Tort Law is concerned with civil wrongs not arising from contracts. We can see the shifting character of Tort Law in nineteenth and twentieth century America as deriving from the shifting ideas of legal scholars and judges particularly ideas about the civil responsibilities of a person to his or her neighbors in society and about the manner in which society should respond to injuries and injured people. An independent identity for Torts late in the nineteenth century is the affection of tort doctrines, especially negligence, to the problems produced by industrialization. Industrialization has played a part in creating the climate of intellectual legal opinion and it affected torts as an independent category of law. Some certain lawyer-intellectuals in the development of legal doctrine in America, who were academicians after 1870, significantly affected the content of tort rules and doctrines and also affected the changing state of tort law in America. There are many categories of Torts. It......

Words: 1851 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Law of Tort

...Negligence In order to advise XXX any claims he may have in torts, it is necessary to determine if such negligence exists. To sue for negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who has suffered damage to establish the following four prerequisites based on the evidence: 1) A duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; 2) Breach of the duty of care by the defendant; 3) Plaintiff suffered damage resulting from the breach; and 4) The damage suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the breach that the connection between the damage and the breach were not too remote. 1) The first question of fact is “Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?” Under the Common Law: Donoghue v Stevenson Under the common law, whether or not the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care is based on the neighbour principle established in the precedent case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], which affirms that a sufficiently close relationship (neighbour relationship) between the parties can give rise to a duty of care. According to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], neighbour refers to the persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing mind to the acts or omissions. In other words, a duty of care arises when persons in a reasonable contemplation are ought to take reasonable care to avoid acts or......

Words: 1229 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Law of Tort

...Introduction This assignment will establish the elements needed for a person to be held liable in Tortious Law. Once the elements have been established they shall then be used to determine if the individuals in each scenario would be held liable. Tort Law Tort Law in layman’s terms is a civil wrong. It does not necessarily need to be an illegal action but an action that has consequently caused harm or suffering to another. The main outcome for a person claiming they have been a victim of a tortious act is compensation. For a successful tort claim the three main elements need to be present and their needs to be a standard of proof; a balance of probabilities. The Necessary Elements As followed in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 i. Duty of Care ii. Breach of Duty iii. Damage caused by Breach of Duty. Causation This coincides with the three part test established in case that leads precedent in tortious liability, Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. i. Foreseeability of Damage ii. A relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood. iii. A relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood Duty of Care Duty of care prior to 1932 was restricted to situations where a relationship had already been established such as a doctor-patient relationship. However in Donoghue v Stevenson that duty of care became adapted. Lord Atkin formulated a principle known as the ‘neighbour test’; ‘take reasonable......

Words: 1639 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...Title : “To impose a duty of care in negligence on the police for their failure to prevent a crime taking place, even in situations where both the suspect and victim were (or ought to be) known, is a tremendously difficult task.” Why is it so notoriously difficult to bring successful negligence claims in such situations? The tort of negligence is defined as the breach of a legal duty to take care resulting in damage to claimant which was not desired by the defendant. According to Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co it is the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”. But the point is that the Law of negligence has no statutory basis. It has developed through a huge number of cases. This means that whenever considering a duty of care exists in any given situation the courts have flexibility to take public policy consideration into account and steer the evolution of the tort of negligence accordingly. This flexibility has also allowed to protect certain classes of defendant from liability in negligence. The traditional approach adopted by the courts has been to refuse an action against the police either on policy grounds or because there is no proximity between the injured person and the police agent. Since the implementation of the Human Right Act 1998 it is possible to bring a direct action......

Words: 1591 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...The tort law case I have selected is Federal Aviation Administration et al v. Cooper. This case (No. 10-1024) was brought before the United States court of appeals by writ of certiorari and argued on November 30, 2011. Justice Alito delivered his decision on March 28, 2012. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent (Cooper) was a licensed pilot who worked for the FAA. Cooper was diagnosed with human immunodeffiency virus (HIV) which would have prevented him from receiving the necessary medical certificates necessary to operate aircraft under FAA regulations at the time. He intentionally withheld that information from the agency on several occasions in order to receive continued renewals of his medical license certificates under FAA regulations. During this time Cooper applied and received long-term disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). In an attempt to identify medically unfit individuals who were obtaining FAA certifications, the Department of Transportation (DOT) provided the SSA with a list of names of licensed pilots to cross reference with their database in order to identify individuals who were receiving disability benefits while concurrently holding FAA flight certifications. Respondents name was discovered and subsequently his license was revoked and he was indicted for making false statements to a Government agency. Mr. Cooper was fined and sentenced to probation. Later on he filed suit against the Government......

Words: 637 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...MATERIALS WEEK 1 The dotted line between ‘fault liability’ and ‘strict liability’: four ideal types of liability in tort law 1. Are the notions of fault and strict liability misleading? • two notions should be considered as they will be applied all along the four types of liability: - fault (as in fault liability) ( liability for one’s own faults. - risk (or strict liability) ( accountability, based on criteria other than individual fault, for the consequences resulting from an unlawful/illegal act. Four ideal types • a) Individual liability for one’s own faults ▪ the basis for this type of liability lies in the conduct of the person held liable. ( this deserves the qualification ‘fault liability’. ▪ article 6:162 BW is the legal basis for the duty to pay damages where the conduct of a person is qualified as wrongful. • b) Individual liability without blameworthiness ▪ accountability is required. ( elements of fault, as wrongful conduct provides the foundation but also elements of strict liability, since there may be no grounds for apportioning blame. ▪ article 6:162 BW as well as article 6:165 BW may provide some legal basis. • c) Liability for damage caused by others (vicarious liability) ▪ this is a form of strict liability, insofar as there is strict responsibility for the fault of others. ▪ Articles 6:169, 6:170, 6:171 and 6:172 BW provide some legal bases...

Words: 986 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

The Tort Law

...Negligent Tort Linda Rapp Bus 670 Dr. Jennifer Stevens Febuary10, 2014 Ashford University Negligent Tort Understanding the Negligent Tort concerning product subject to recall from the Consumer Product Safety Division the product involved was three styles of Sugarfly-branded hooded woven and cotton styles jackets. The jackets were manufactured by Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide. Style number KMCB1255,KMCBJ410,KMCBJ421 are the products being recalled the hooded jacket should be taken away from children to avoid hazard. The coat coat sizes are for girls age 7 through 16 the date of the recall is from September 2011 through September 2013. The consumer will receive complete product refund around $ 40.00. The Burlington Coat Factory negligent actions in selling the product in question in product liability with the laws that protect consumers the Safety Improvement Act in 2008 (Seaquist,2012) The answer is if the Burlington Coat Factory had not recalled the product and caused harm to consumers they would have been liable for negligence actions. The Discusses the following in relation to the product recall:: Duty of Care Standard of Care Breach of the Duty of Care Actual Causation Proximate Causation Actual Injury Defenses to Negligence Analyze and apply a relevant consumer protection statute identified under “Consumer Protection” in Chapter 8 of your text in conjunction with the product recall that you have identified.Must addres Home /......

Words: 336 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Law of Tort

... Law of tort is a civil wrong other than a claim for breach of contract; and for which a right civil action for damages may arise. Negligence is defined by Winfield and Jolowicz as “Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by the law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages”. (Roger, W.V.H., 2006) In Malaysia, the law of tort is largely derived from common law in England. In the law of tort, negligence is the most widely used tort in the legal system. In order for a claimant who is seeking for remedy to successfully bring a claim in a negligence case, they must first prove these 3 factors: * The defendant held a legal duty against the claimant. Therefore, the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care. * The defendant had breach of that duty. * The claimant are suffering damages resulted in that breach of duty. These three factors will sometimes be shortened as duty, breach and damage. Duty of care This important factor of negligence came from a famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this case, the claimant, Ms Donoghue went to the Minchella’s Wellmeadow Café in Paisley with her friend. Her friend ordered a bottle of ginger beer that was contained in an opaque bottle. When she poured the remained ginger beer, a decomposed snail came out with her ice cream. Ms Donoghue became ill as she has consumed the contaminated beer. She could not sue the café under...

Words: 7008 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

Law of Torts

...STAGE ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUES APPARENT I have been asked to advise my client as to his/her prospect regarding. The relevant material facts contained in the excerpt provided include……… From initial viewing of the hypothetical facts I propose that there are numerous legal issues contained: STAGE 2: IDENTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL RULES I assert that the relevant rules that apply are found in the law of torts(with specific identification to the tort of negligence, a tort that emerged as of primary importance as per the landmark decision in the House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562.) and statutory provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) which have been enacted to either clarify or modify the common law rules that determine liability for negligence. As a broadly conceived scope, the underlying principle of negligence is that a defendant may be liable in a wide range of circumstances for failure to take reasonable care which causes harm to a plaintiff’ protected interests. Now, wrongful or careless behaviour is not always actionable in negligence. The defendant will only be liable if the plaintiff can prove that three essential requirements are satisfied: Three essential requirements that must be satisfied in order to establish liability in negligence: (a) That the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care * Pre – existing relationship will create a duty of care. OR * “Neighbour principle”...

Words: 1916 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...siblings, friends and colleagues to support and helped me to successfully complete full assignment . Table of Contents Contents TORT: 3 Intentional Tort: 3 Strict Liability: 3 Negligence: 4 Duty of care: 4 Breach of Duty: 5 Causation: 6 Vicarious Liability: 8 Reference: 12 LO 3 Understanding the principles of liability in negligence in business activities. TORT: The liability of the violation of a fixed law, law arises primarily; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is capable of redress by action unliquidated damages. This is a civil wrong, in the sense that it is committed against an individual, not the State. The essence of tort law is that a person has certain interests that are protected by law. These interests can be protected by a court granting a sum of money, known as damages. There are increasingly limited circumstances where the victim of a tort may avail himself of self-help. Types of Tort: There are basically three types of tort: 1. Intentional Tort 2. Strict Liability 3. Negligence Intentional Tort: It is a civil offense which occurs when the wrongdoer intentionally engages in conduct that results in damages to another. Hitting another person in a fight is an intentional act that would be the tort of battery. Accidentally hit a person would not be an intentional tort because it had no intention of attacking the person. Strict Liability: Sometimes called as absolute liability, it is......

Words: 2880 - Pages: 12

Free Essay

Tort and Conflict of Laws

...CHAPTER 1 An Introduction 1.1 Introduction: The peculiar feature that tort occupies in private international law is that if the tortious act has been committed entirely locally, then lex loci delicti governs it, irrespective of the fact that whether it has or has not some foreign element, such as, both or one of the parties is domiciled or resident abroad or national of another country. The foreign law is applicable only in some very exceptional situations. Torts in Common Law countries mean civil wrongs to a person, to property, or to a person’s reputation. Common examples are negligent acts causing injury or deaths, conversion, trespass to property and defamation. 1.2 Research Methodology: In making this project report the doctrinal method of research has been used. 1.3 Focus area: This project report focuses on the tort under private international law. 1.4 Scope of the study: In this project report the meaning of tort and law applicable to tort under private international law has been explained. CHAPTER 2 Conceptual Analysis 2.1 TORT AND CONFLICT OF LAWS: Torts in Common Law countries mean civil wrongs to a person, to property, or to a person’s reputation. Common examples are negligent acts causing injury or deaths, conversion, trespass to property and defamation. The same act may be both a tort and crime: assault can be a cause of action in tort and may also be a criminal offence. That is also true in some other situations, for example,......

Words: 3643 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...responsible medical person experience is a special art. In this aspect the doctor is not a negligent. 2. Tort law Tort law covers in various areas like a claims of passenger insured in a road accident, a patient issue by doctor negligence. People arrested by police wrongly, and landowner land has been trespassed on. The tort law comes when there is a violation of general responsible duty fixed by civil law . Normally tort law is committed and allows the victim to claim towards financial due to damage of this personal so that it is a compensate for the commission of the tort. Basically the Tort Law involves violation of the duty that is fixed by the law. According to the above Bolam medical case as I mentioned above will comes under this law because the doctor negligence due to violating of his duty and responsibility to identify the patient treatment requirements. For example the duty of the doctor responsible as per the contract is a violate on his responsibilities is a issue in this situation. The tort main aim is to compensate for the patient results according to the doctors treatment. The contract aims primarily to enforce promises by the doctor responsibilities in his duties. The tort law has set of principles to guide the various situations in various cases as I mentioned above. The role of policy in a tort is depends on many decisions. For example many tort cases one or both people were involved through insurance bodies. The medical negligence is a......

Words: 2334 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Tort Law Case

...Tort Law Case I. The fireman car accident The fireman’s car was driving at a very high speed. This excess of speed was ordered by his supervisor. The car ahead, under the pressure of the fireman’s car had become agitated and by trying to make room for the fire engine, collided with a lamp post. The driver of this car had no security belt. We have to see if the fireman is liable. To be liable, three things are needed : a damage, a fact, a causation between them. According to the principle of tort law, article 1:101 of European Principle of Tort Law, (the strict liability) as soon as the victim proved that he suffers a damage, it’s needed to have compensation. Is there a damage ? Peter has collided and had to be took to the emergency. Based on article 2:102 (2) of European Principle of Tort Law, a bodily integrity enjoys the most extensive protection. If no serious hurt had been seen, we can assume that it exists a little traumatism or maybe a light physical damage and therefore this is a bodily damage. A damage exists, so the victim, Peter, doesn’t have to prove a fault, according to the strict liability principle. We need to identify the fact. By driving too fast, with the flashing lights, with the bell sounding, the fireman put a pressure on Peter who panicked and by trying to make room for the fireman, he collided with a lamp post. Are the fact and the damage in relation ? To identify the factual causes, we utilize the......

Words: 2588 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...QUESTION. “The law tampers with the But for test of causation as its peril.” -Lord Brown; Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011) The Bust for test of causation is said to be fraught with difficulties. How has the law developed to overcome these difficulties? INTRODUCTION Negligence in the law of tort is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonably straight person would exercise in such like circumstances. In tort law, this area of negligence involves harm caused by carelessness and not by intention. The tort of negligence structures a standout amongst the most element and quickly changing zones of obligation in the present day law. Its rise in the 20th century shows the pressure of the social and economic changes on the traditional ways of legal redress for interference with protected interests. The reasonable structure of carelessness is very adaptable and fit for general application. These components have permitted the courts to use the tort in the setting of novel cases for pay. On the other hand, the development of carelessness has not supported the extension of risk and throughout the years, courts have been putting a few limitations on this degree. The tort of carelessness does not right now appear to be set upon some foreordained way of growth as it once had all the earmarks of being. The modern history of tort law started with the groundbreaking judgment of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson where Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend...

Words: 4638 - Pages: 19

Premium Essay

Tort Law

...Torts Assignment PART 1 1) Does Autumn Bay High owe a duty of care to Persephone and Aphrodite? Consider the common law as well as any impact that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) may have on the common law. The main considerations that have to be taken into account when deciding whether Autumn Bay High owed a duty of care to Persephone and Aphrodite are the reasonable foreseeability of nervous shock and whether their duty of care was non-delegable. Under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) “the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff if they ought to have foreseen that a person of normal fortitude might, in the circumstances of the case, suffer a recognized psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken”. It has been established through Tame v New South Wales & Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited[1] that reasonable foreseeability of mental harm is a precondition of the existence of a duty of care. Taking the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) into account, the fact that the school is taking its students on a ski trip already establishes a general duty of care. It is reasonably foreseeable that such an activity poses the possibility of serious injuries if adequate supervision is not provided. In addition to this, it is not fanciful or far-fetched that witnessing a horrific physical injury to a fellow student can cause sudden shock and consequential mental harm to a person. While Aphrodite witnesses the actual accident, and......

Words: 3481 - Pages: 14