Business Law - Defenses of Negligence

Hey, thanks for clicking play on this video, or we're going to be talking about some of the defenses to negligence. Now, if you're unfamiliar with the topic of negligence, I would recommend checking out our prior lecture where we introduced the topic of negligence, and we talked about some of the important elements that need to exist for a negligence type case. So in this lecture, we're going to explore some of the defenses that can be raised in a negligence claim and examine the notable case of Leaback versus McDonald's, which we introduced in our last video. Before we discuss the defenses, just a quick overview of the case that really is the discussion and the focal point for this lecture, which is Leaback versus McDonald's restaurants.

So we talked about this last time, so I'm going to keep it very brief. So in 1992, Stella Leaback, who was a 79 year old woman, suffered some severe burns when she spilled a cup of scalding hot coffee that she purchased at a McDonald's drive-through. She then subsequently filed a lawsuit against McDonald's alleging negligence and serving excessively hot coffee. So we're going to be exploring some of the defenses that McDonald's had raised in that particular case.

The first defense is what is called contributory negligence. Now this particular negligence defense is commonly raised in these types of cases and refers to a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for their own safety, thus contributing in some way to their own injuries. Now in the case of McDonald's or Leaback rather versus McDonald's, McDonald's argued somewhat unsuccessfully that Leaback's own actions, such as adding cream and sugar while she was seated in a moving vehicle, constituted contributory negligence and that they should not be held liable for her subsequent damages. Another type of defense that can be raised in these sorts of cases is what's called comparative negligence.

Now comparative negligence allows the court to allocate fault between the plaintiff and the defendant to some degree, so shared responsibility, and thus determine damages in a proportionate manner to that. Now McDonald's contended that even if they were partially at fault, that Miss Leaback should bear some responsibility for her injuries due to her own negligence. The third negligence defense is what is known as assumption of risk. Now assumption of risk refers to the legal principle that if a plaintiff voluntarily engages in a known dangerous activity and is aware of those risks, they assume responsibility for any resulting harm.

Now in this case McDonald's argued that Miss Leaback was fully aware of the potential danger associated with hot coffee and willingly assumed that risk by purchasing and then handling that beverage. So now that you're a little bit familiar of some of the different defenses related to negligence, let's further analyze McDonald's defense. Now in the case of contributory negligence, this implies that if the plaintiff is even slightly at fault, they cannot recover any sort of damages. So this was certainly something that McDonald's was hoping to argue because this would then make it that they would not have to pay for any subsequent damages to Miss Leaback.

However, in this case also, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% at fault and Miss Leaback was 20% at fault, thus allowing her to receive compensation proportionate to the remaining fault of McDonald's. So comparative negligence was at play. Regarding comparative negligence, the jury certainly acknowledged that Miss Leaback had a certain degree of responsibility, but still they determined that McDonald's actions alone constituted the majority of the fault leading to a verdict in her favor. Now lastly, the defense of assumption of risk assumes that the plaintiff knowingly accepted the risks associated with the particular activity.

In Leaback's case, the jury concluded that while Miss Leaback knew the coffee would be hot, she didn't fully comprehend the severity of the danger posed by the excessively high temperature of McDonald's coffee. As we conclude this video, I want to reiterate that the defenses to negligence, which include contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk, play a crucial role in determining the outcome of a case. And in the case of Leaback versus McDonald's restaurants, while McDonald's raised these defenses, the jury ultimately found in favor of Miss Leaback, recognizing the significant responsibility of the defendant. Now understanding the defenses to negligence is very important for navigating the complexities of personal injury cases, as well as comprehending the factors that can impact the outcome.

I hope you enjoyed this video, and in particular the deep dive into the McDonald's case. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time.