Misplaced Pages

#754245

59-411: Where licensees are present, activities conducted on the land by or at the behest of the owner of the land must be conducted with the care that a prudent person would show. A duty to warn arises if there is a harmful condition on the land that is hidden from the licensee, so long as the landowner knows of this condition. The licensee falls between the anticipated or discovered trespasser and the invitee on

118-478: A Retro Report video about the media reaction and an accompanying article about the changes in coffee drinking over 20 years. The New York Times noted how the details of Liebeck's story lost length and context as it was reported worldwide, and that McDonald's, rather than Liebeck, was portrayed as the victim. Within a month, the Retro Report video had more than one million views and had triggered debate in

177-637: A "breach of warranty of merchantability " case. Not long after launching its Note 7 smartphone in August 2016, Samsung got many reports of burning phones. Samsung had no choice other than recalling all the Galaxy Note 7, which had cost the company around $ 5.3bn. Following the recall, the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited people from turning Galaxy Note 7 on, packing it in the checked luggage, and charging it while on

236-479: A client poses a risk to himself or others. The first was Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), where a therapist failed to inform a young woman and her parents of specific death threats made by a client. The other case was Jablonski by Pahls v. United States (1983), which further extended the responsibilities of duty to warn by including the review of previous records that might include

295-417: A client's secrets, divulged in the context of the therapeutic relationship. Limitations to confidentiality are a critical concern for clinicians, because a relationship of trust between the therapist and client is the prerequisite context for therapeutic growth. Without the client's expectation that the therapist will honor the client's confidences divulged in the therapeutic dialogue, the client will not have

354-508: A directive to the agencies of the United States Intelligence Community that they had a "duty to warn" both U.S. and non-U.S. persons of impending harm against them. The directive included exemptions for occasions that required the protection of sensitive "sources and methods," cases where the intended victim was a member of a terrorist group or a violent criminal, or if the intended victim was already aware of

413-426: A documentary about tort reform problems, Hot Coffee . A large portion of the film covered Liebeck's lawsuit. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians about the case, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered only minor superficial burns. On October 21, 2013, The New York Times published

472-409: A history of violent behavior. The duty to warn arises in product liability cases, as manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by their products if the product causes an injury to a consumer and the manufacturer fails to supply adequate warnings about the risks of using the product (such as side effects from pharmacy prescriptions) or if they fail to supply adequate instructions for

531-443: A mediator suggested $ 225,000 just before trial; McDonald's refused both. The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that

590-410: A number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting

649-554: A similar lawsuit in the United Kingdom failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature. Since Liebeck , major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A , Starbucks , Dunkin' Donuts , Wendy's , Burger King , hospitals, and McDonald's have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. There have also been lawsuits over injuries from other hot liquids. Two years prior to Liebeck ,

SECTION 10

#1732787789755

708-517: A similar lawsuit was settled during the trial for $ 15 million due to injuries from a sink in a rented apartment. Another lawsuit involving McDonald's was heard in Florida with the restaurant sued after a four-year-old girl suffered second-degree burns after a chicken nugget from a Happy Meal fell in between her leg and the seatbelt. McDonald's was found liable for negligence in the case and in July 2023

767-444: A trespasser may impose a duty of care towards certain kinds of trespassers. For example, a dangerous condition may effectively invite children to come onto the property. Such an attractive nuisance may impose a duty of care even towards trespassers. Historically, emergency workers  – police and firefighters  – have been considered licensees, but they are barred from recovering from injuries caused by

826-472: Is advice from consultants that high temperatures are necessary in brewing to fully extract the flavor. Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $ 500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries

885-440: Is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that

944-647: The Clery Act was enacted which requires colleges and universities in the United States to publish campus crime reports. In 2008, Eastern Michigan University was fined $ 357,500 for violating the Clery Act. US federal officials cited the university for "an egregious violation" for failing to notify the public of the murder of Laura Dickinson in her residence hall room. In July 2015, then– Director of National Intelligence James Clapper formally issued

1003-514: The January 3, 2024, Kerman bombings , a terrorist attack carried out by ISIS-K suicide bombers that killed 94 people and injured 284 others, the U.S. intelligence community provided Iran, often considered an adversary of the U.S. , with an early warning under its "duty to warn" policy. U.S. officials noted that the information given was sufficiently specific regarding the location and timely enough that it may have proved useful to Tehran in thwarting

1062-703: The McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit , was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain. The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck (1912–2004), a 79-year-old woman, purchased hot coffee from a McDonald's restaurant, accidentally spilled it in her lap, and suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region. She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting , followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $ 20,000 to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, Liebeck's attorney filed suit in

1121-592: The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico , accusing McDonald's of gross negligence . Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. The jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident. They awarded Liebeck a net $ 160,000 in compensatory damages to cover medical expenses, and $ 2.7 million (equivalent to $ 5,600,000 in 2023) in punitive damages ,

1180-547: The "balcony rapist". In 1998, this woman was successful in her lawsuit against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force for damages on the grounds that the police force had conducted a negligent investigation and failed to warn women of the risk of an attack by Callow. In December 2012, a woman, who later became a Jane Doe plaintiff, was attacked by Sofyan Boalag in St. John's, Newfoundland. This assault

1239-435: The $ 10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part. They state that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury. Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in

SECTION 20

#1732787789755

1298-491: The Jane Doe plaintiff alleged that Internet Brands, Inc. 's failure to warn users of its networking website, modelmayhem.com, caused her to be a victim of a rape scheme. She alleged that defendant Internet Brands knew about the rapists but did not warn her or the website's other users. She filed an action against Internet Brands alleging liability for negligence under California law based on that failure to warn. On May 31, 2016,

1357-627: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Communications Decency Act does not bar Jane Doe's failure to warn claim. In the early morning hours of August 24, 1986, a woman who lived in a second-floor apartment in Toronto was raped at knifepoint by Paul Callow , who had broken into her apartment from a balcony. At the time, the plaintiff was the fifth victim of similar crimes by Callow, who would become known as

1416-477: The University of California . The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. Explicit in the court's decision

1475-661: The attack. In March 2024, the United States privately warned Russian officials of the danger of an impending attack from Islamic State – Khorasan Province ( IS-KP or ISIS–K), from intelligence gathered earlier in March, under the US intelligence community's "duty to warn" requirement. Later that month the group would carry out the Crocus City Hall attack which killed 139 people. Liebeck v. McDonald%27s Restaurants Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants , also known as

1534-512: The case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". Ex-attorney Susan Saladoff sees the portrayal in the media as purposeful misrepresentation due to political and corporate influence. In June 2011, HBO premiered Hot Coffee , a documentary that discussed in depth how the Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform. Stella May Liebeck

1593-493: The coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin. Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in

1652-434: The consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to … protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm." In situations when there is cause for serious concern about a client harming someone, the clinician must breach confidentiality to warn the identified victim/third party about imminent danger. Although laws vary somewhat in different states, in general,

1711-495: The danger must be imminent and the breach of confidentiality should be made to someone who is in a position to reduce the risk of the danger. People who would be appropriate recipients of such information would include the intended victim and law enforcement. Duty to warn is embedded in the historical context of two rulings (1974 and 1976) of the California Supreme Court in the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of

1770-564: The duty to warn has raised questions regarding therapists' responsibility to breach confidentiality in order to report clients' nonviolent behaviors which may pose danger to others, as in the case of clients with HIV/AIDS . The existence and extent of a contractual duty to warn in construction cases is discussed in the England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court) case of Cleightonhills v Bembridge Marine Ltd and Others (2012). In Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc. ,

1829-428: The equivalent of two days of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to three times the amount of the compensatory damages, totalling $ 640,000. The parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform . It was cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation ; ABC News called

Licensee - Misplaced Pages Continue

1888-428: The error in designing and manufacturing the batteries of its two suppliers. An issue in product liability cases is whether the product warranted a duty to warn about known dangers. In the popularized 1994 Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case where the individual Liebeck sued McDonald's for damages for injuries due to spilling hot coffee on her lap. McDonald's was cited not to have properly warned consumers about

1947-582: The first story of the verdict, followed by the Associated Press wire, which was picked up by newspapers around the world. The Liebeck case is often cited in a misleading manner by proponents of tort reform , who present an inaccurate or incomplete summary of the facts in order to falsely frame the case as frivolous litigation . ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits". Legal commentator Jonathan Turley called it "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". McDonald's asserts that

2006-407: The freedom to unveil the most troublesome and private issues that are matters of the utmost concern and need for intervention. Some argue that if clients cannot depend on confidentiality in all matters that are related in therapy, potentially dangerous clients, who may be most in need of psychological services, will avoid therapy, thus missing the opportunity for intervention. Other cases similar to

2065-659: The girl, then eight years-old, was awarded $ 800,000 in damages. According to a 2007 report, McDonald's had not reduced the temperature of its coffee, serving it at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future injury and liability (though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee). However, in 2013 the New York Times reported that it had lowered its service temperature to 170–180 °F (77–82 °C). The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering

2124-648: The hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting . During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg), nearly 20 percent of her body weight, reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $ 20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $ 10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $ 2,500; and her daughter's loss of income

2183-418: The inherent danger of their coffee product, which was heated way beyond the average chain coffee's temperature . In addition, McDonald's was aware of previous injuries from hot coffee injuries and had not properly warned the consumers, which resulted in the court awarding Liebeck $ 640,000 in damages, which was later settled for an undisclosed amount. Most notably, a property owner has a duty to warn persons on

2242-567: The issues addressed in the Tarasoff case have been brought to the attention of the courts, such as the Jablonski by Pahls v. United States . The conclusion of that case extended the responsibility entailed in the duty to warn with the judgment that the clinician may be liable for failure to review previous records, which may contain a history of previous violent behavior, a predictor of potential future violence. Recent consideration of applying

2301-485: The jurors arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues, about $ 1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $ 480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $ 640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. The Albuquerque Journal ran

2360-543: The outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit, although McDonald's in fact had not done so. Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $ 800 settlement for

2419-408: The owner. Under traditional common law , a property possessor (not necessarily the owner) has no duty whatsoever to trespassers. Some states retain the traditional common law rule, while other states, such as California , have imposed a reasonable duty of care toward all people who enter a property. Even states that have retained the traditional common law rule regarding the absence of duty towards

Licensee - Misplaced Pages Continue

2478-402: The plane. On October 11, 2016 Samsung stopped the production and issued a warning for people to turn the Galaxy Note 7 off and to not use it any longer. Samsung also told all of its global partners to stop selling the phone because of concerns about the product's safety. After testing 200,000 devices and 30,000 batteries, Samsung found that the overheating and the burning phones was resulted from

2537-481: The principles of comparative negligence , the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20 percent at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $ 200,000 in compensatory damages , which was reduced by 20 percent to $ 160,000. In addition, they awarded her $ 2.7 million in punitive damages . According to The New York Times ,

2596-406: The proper use of the product (such as a precaution to use safety glasses when using a drill). If the manufacturer fails to supply these warnings, the law will consider the product itself to be defective. A lawsuit by a party injured by a product, where the manufacturer failed to properly warn, is usually brought as a " negligence " action, but it could be filed as a " strict liability " claim or as

2655-401: The property of various hazards, depending on the status of the person on the property. For example, the property owner must warn an anticipated or discovered trespasser of deadly conditions known to the property owner, but that would be hidden from the trespasser. The property owner must warn licensees of all known hazards (whether deadly or not), and must warn invitees of all dangers that

2714-468: The property owner can discover through a reasonable inspection of the property. In clinical psychological practice in the United States , duty to warn requires a clinician who has reasonable grounds to believe that a client may be in imminent danger of harming themselves or others to warn the possible victims. Duty to warn is among the few exceptions to a client's right to confidentiality and

2773-409: The public that a predator was stalking young women. According to the statement of claim, all of the attacks took place in a similar part of the city and involved people with similar characteristics—six young women, including one girl under 16 years of age. In 1986, 19-year-old Jeanne Clery was raped and murdered in her Lehigh University dorm room. Her parents noted: Because her parents' efforts,

2832-460: The reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. Another of McDonald's reasons for serving such hot coffee

2891-524: The risks inherent to their jobs. Generally such injuries are instead covered by worker's compensation . Duty to warn A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so. In the United States, two landmark legal cases established therapists' legal obligations to breach confidentiality if they believe

2950-419: The sliding scale of tort liability assessed to landowners. Whereas the anticipated trespasser needs to be protected from known man made conditions capable of causing death or serious injury , the licensee must be warned of all known dangers. However, unlike an invitee, a licensee has no standing to sue for dangerous conditions that "should have been" discovered by the property owner but were not actually known to

3009-488: The temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). On June 27, 2011, HBO premiered

SECTION 50

#1732787789755

3068-534: The therapist's ethical obligation to maintain confidential information related in the context of the therapeutic relationship . In the American Psychological Association 's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct , the therapist's duty to warn is implicitly contained within the guidelines for disclosure of confidential information without the consent of the client: "Psychologists disclose confidential information without

3127-680: The threat. Many U.S. intelligence agencies had informally observed such a practice for decades before Clapper's directive. In 2019, the Committee to Protect Journalists sued the Trump administration for information on whether the U.S. government had followed its "duty to warn" principle in the case of the murdered Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi . In August 2021, a U.S. appeals court ruled that U.S. intelligence agencies were not required to disclose whether they had information about threats to Khashoggi's life before his assassination. Before

3186-485: The years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse. In McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic , finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous". In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002),

3245-490: Was approximately $ 5,000 for a total of approximately $ 18,000. McDonald's offered only $ 800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained the Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico , accusing McDonald's of gross negligence for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". Morgan offered to settle for $ 300,000, and

3304-579: Was born in Norwich , England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico . Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe , which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed

3363-416: Was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying

3422-527: Was the last of six assaults between September and December 2012. Boalag was charged with 23 criminal offences in relation to complaints from multiple victims. In 2016, he was convicted of multiple offenses including robbery, three counts of sexual assault with a weapon, and choking Doe until she passed out. In January 2016, Doe commenced a lawsuit against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary , alleging police failed to properly warn

3481-399: Was the principle that the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship is subordinate to the safety of society and its members. Despite the value and importance of protecting the client and their feelings, and thus the physician-client relationship , the court decided that the clinician's duty to society as a citizen of that society places certain limitations on the clinician's loyalty to

#754245