Sharay Rapozo

January 8, 2018
LSJ 200 AC
“Java Jive” Reading Questions

1. In Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the plaintiff used the defective product liability
narrative. The coffee being sold by McDonald’s was served at such high temperatures
that can lead to scalding, a trait that McDonald’s was aware of, yet chose to continue
selling the product as is. On the other hand, the defense used an individual responsibility
narrative. In this narrative, it was argued that the plaintiff has only herself to blame for
her injuries. The plaintiff, Liebeck, should have been more careful when handling her hot
beverage, and should have removed her clothing quicker when she spilled on herself.
Furthermore, McDonald’s argued they have done their part of warning customers by
placed hot drinks in well-insulated cups that are equipped with a plastic tab on the lid to
prevent spillage.
2. The complexity of the case got truncated in media accounts because media outlets would
prefer to release an easily accessible article than one of the informative legal facts. The
media coverage of Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants was greatly oversimplified, and
full of falsities. Several details of the spilling incident and factors of the court decision
were often left out of many media outlets. As stated in the reading, the media outlets are
working for a society orientated in “infotainment” rather than facts.
3. The public conversation surrounding the case is consistent with key themes in American
culture, including the victim complex and capitalism. Many of the conversations about
the case led in people believing Americans have become too susceptible to be blaming
others for their faults, and see themselves as victims far too quickly. Also, the
conversations led to the vast majority of Americans to side with McDonald’s, the already
established, powerful, and rich corporation. Tort reformers greatly mobilized the themes
above. Tort reformers spoke of scenarios similar the McDonald’s case as preventive
measures. Now that such a seemingly outrageous case had taken place, the tort reformers
seemed much more believable. Tort reformers were able to use the McDonald’s case as a
“we told you so” to further mobilize the themes of capitalism and the victim complex.
4. The McDonald’s hot coffee case reached much farther than the printed news, spreading
across TV news coverage, magazines, television shows, and so forth. However, it was
rare for any of these forms to tell the case in its entirety, without a single fact missing or
told incorrectly one way or another. This is very telling about the relationship between
American pop culture and law. Rather than demanding the case in its entirety with real
facts, the American society chose to believe whatever was being told to them, albeit the
lack of facts. The McDonald’s hot coffee case proves the American pop culture will
decide to show whatever is entertaining, over the truth. I agree with the analysis drawn in
this article. From the examples given, it seems that every outlet was quick to blame the
victim, and ignore the facts of the case.