| Problem 19.1 The Spilled Coffee In 1994, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee from the drive-thru window at a fast food restaurant. While the car, driven by her grandson, was stopped to allow her cream and sugar in her coffee, she balanced the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the lid. The coffee spilled, causing third degree burns over 6 percent of Liebeck�s body and causing her to spend eight days in the hospital and undergo skin graft operations. Liebeck sued the restaurant for damages. A The restaurant was part of a large national chain that served its coffee at approximately 180 degrees, despite the fact that the coffee at such high temperature is too hot to drink. At the trial, the chain�s quality control manager testified that the sale of any food over 140 degrees would create a burn hazard. The restaurant argued that, according to its surveys, many of its customers bring coffee back home or to work with them and consume it there, so the higher holding temperature is necessary to assure that it is still hot when consumed. They also claimed that many of their customers chose this particular chain because their coffee was served hot. Between 1982 and 1992 the chain was aware of 700 claims by people burned from their coffee. The jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages (finding her 20% at fault on her own negligence) and $2.7 million in punitive damages (the equivalent of two days of the chain�s coffee sales). The trial judge reduced the amount of punitive damages to $480,000 and the parties eventually came to a secret settlement agreement for an undisclosed amount. The case launched a public debate about the appropriateness of lawsuits with high damage awards in situations such as this one. a. Who is the plaintiff in this case? Who is the defendant? b. What, if anything, did the defendant do wrong? What, if anything, did the plaintiff do wrong? c. Did the defendant cause her harm on purpose? Did the defendant�s conduct in some way cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff? d. Do you agree or disagree with the outcome of this trial? Give your reasons. e. What are the arguments for and against the award of punitive damages in a case like this one? Problem 19.2 Bartender Liability Lance is bartender at the local pub. He sees that Mike and Nancy, two regular customers, are clearly intoxicated. They ask him for one more round of drinks before they leave. Not wanting to offend them, he serves them, saying, �Let�s make this the last round.� Thirty minutes later the couple leaves the bar to go home. Just after Nancy pulls her car onto the highway, she swerves and hits another car head-on. Mike and the driver of the other car are seriously injured. a. Who can sue whom in this situation? b. What duty did Lance have in this situation? Did he violate that duty? c. Now assume that Lance is hosting a private Christmas party in his home. During the party, Nancy and Mike have a little too much to drink. The rest of the facts are the same as abov e. Answer Questions a and b using this scenario. d. Is it fair to hold Lance responsible in either of this situation above? Give your reasons. Is anyone else responsible? e. Some restaurants and bars have �designated driver� programs. Problem 19.3 AIDS Liability Jim is infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. He is new in town and does noy want anyone to know about this condition. He becomes romantically involved with Amy and has unprotected sex with her, but does not disclose his infection with HIV. Amy contracts the virus. a. Did Jim have a duty to tell Amy about this condition? Explain b. Would it make a difference if AIDS were curable? c. What, if anything, should Amy be able to recover in damages from Jim? Explain. d. Could Amy sue Jim if she did not contract the virus but was very upset when she learned that he had not told her about it? |