A group of claimants sued for personal injuries caused by the spillage of hot drinks served by the defendant, McDonald’s. The issues included: ‘(5) Whether there was a duty upon the defendant to warn its customers as to the risk of scalding from hot drinks. (6) If there was such a duty, whether the defendant was in breach of it.’
Held: The court discused these issues and noted the contentions for the claimants that there was a duty to warn for various reasons, including: ‘(5) Whilst some customers might be aware of the risk, the duty to warn arises because some may not be aware of the risk.’ He said: ‘I think it a fair inference that small children very rarely buy or intentionally consume coffee and tea in McDonald’s Restaurants. (It is certainly the case that in all the claims that have been brought, the hot drinks were bought by an adult.) In my opinion, McDonald’s could therefore expect that the great majority of those who bought hot drinks in their restaurants would be in their teenage years or above. In my judgement, these customers could be taken to know that the coffee and tea they were buying was hot and could cause a nasty scalding injury if it spilled on someone. Most customers would not know precisely how hot the drink was, but they would know that tea and coffee is made with very hot water. Nor would most customers know just how severe the scalding injury could be, but they would know that it could be very painful and serious. They would also know that drinks occasionally get spilled in restaurants such as those run by McDonald’s.’ and ‘Whether McDonald’s were negligent in not warning their customers depends on an objective assessment of all the circumstances, including the risk of injury and the customers’ appreciation of those matters that gave rise to the risk. As I have said, I am quite satisfied that those who bought coffee and tea could be taken to know that such drinks sometimes get spilled and are served at temperatures which cause serious and painful injury if they come into contact with someone’s skin. I accordingly find that there was no duty on McDonald’s to warn their customers about the risk posed by the temperatures at which tea and coffee were served, notwithstanding the warnings they gave to their employees and the fact that from 1995 a warning has been printed on the cups.’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Field
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 490 (QB)
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Negligence
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170026
