Case Study : Flagstar Enterprises, Inc. V. Maureen Davis

The client, Mr. Andy Dwyer (“Dwyer”), wishes to bring a wrongful death claim on behalf of his sister, Ms. Kelly Erin Hannon (“Hannon”). Hannon is a deceased employee of Colonial Charm Garden Apartments (“Colonial Charm”). Hannon died after being stabbed during an attempted robbery of Colonial Charm. Dwyer claims Colonial Charm should have known of the increased criminal activity in the area and that Colonial Charm was negligent in failing to provide extra security patrols for the protection of its employees. Dwyer wants to sue Colonial Charm for $3 million for loss of life, wages, future income, and pain and suffering and $3 million in punitive damages.

The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

This case is by no means easy to judge or come to a conclusion. A large portion of the award was due to pain and suffering. It is a bit difficult to fully understand the high payout and how the amount was deemed appropriate. It is very difficult to assess a sum for spilled coffee. The jury really considered the time it took to recover and not to mention her treatment expenses. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Liebeck wanted to initially settle out of court for 20,000 dollars, which McDonalds refused. Refusing to settle out of court opened the doors to litigation and ultimately cost McDonalds in this case.

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

The case was carried on the trail court which gave decision in favour of Ms. Palsgraf, then the case was appealed at intermediate New York which has also given decision in the favour of Ms. Palsgraf; then it was taken the court of appeals, highest court in New York which provided the reverse decision and dismissed. This was a classical example in the tort law.

In the case sub judice, we are called upon to adopt one of two polarized positions by holding either that this is one of the infrequent instances where a trial court has abused the discretion vested in it, or, alternatively, we are asked to endorse the equally exceptional position that this is the first “unusual and compelling circumstance” since the Court of Appeals adopted this articulation of the rule in 1975. A. S. Abell Co., 274 Md. at 721. After weighing the considerations that are woven through our authorities on this subject; namely, judicial economy, comity, and control of the litigation; we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Volkman’s motion for summary judgment.

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

Lochner filed the case against New York. New York stated that cooking at a bakery causes all of health issues, and that the law was protecting his health. The Court ruled 5-4, because they found it did restrict the owners individual business, and they didn’t have a reliable reason to pass the law. People believed that the State of New York didn’t make the law for health and safety; it was a labor law.

The courts ruled that the plaintiff had not right to use such coercive methods when competing for business and the liability was clear in this circumstance. The defendant was awarded $1250.00 by the plaintiff for compensatory damages and $4000.00 was awarded by the association for exemplary damages. Plaintiff attempted to appeal stating the awarded amount was excessive; the courts ruled that the amount awarded was not excessive and denied the appeal from the plaintiff. No dissenting opinion was made.

Grange claimed the “contributory negligence” to eliminate their liability by saying the Councils did not reasonably implement the contractual and tortious duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. However, that argument was rejected by the court. In relation to this, Rare J found: