## Facts

- The claimants sustained scalding injuries from spilled hot drinks purchased at McDonald’s restaurants.
- The case was heard by the High Court of England and Wales.
- The plaintiffs alleged McDonald’s failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks posed by hot beverages and did not implement sufficient preventative measures.
- Evidence showed McDonald’s served hot beverages at temperatures between 80°C and 90°C, higher than typical at-home preparation.
- The court considered industry standards, scientific evidence on burn risk, and practicality of serving beverages at lower temperatures.
- McDonald’s argued high service temperatures were necessary for product quality and consistent with industry practices.

## Issues

1. Whether McDonald’s owed a duty of care in serving hot beverages at elevated temperatures.
2. Whether McDonald’s breached that duty by failing to warn or adequately mitigate the risk of scalding.
3. Whether the temperatures at which beverages were served exceeded reasonable consumer expectations.
4. Whether the adequacy of McDonald’s risk communications (warnings on cups and by staff) fulfilled legal requirements for warning consumers.

## Decision

- The court found that McDonald’s owed a duty of care to its consumers regarding the risks associated with hot beverages.
- McDonald’s was found to have breached this duty by failing to provide sufficiently clear and prominent warnings of the risk of serious burns.
- The high temperature of beverages alone was not deemed inherently unreasonable given practical and industry considerations, but required adequate risk communication.
- Evidence of industry practice did not absolve McDonald’s of its responsibility to ensure customer safety.
- The court attributed the plaintiffs’ injuries in part to McDonald’s insufficient warnings and preventative measures.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care in negligence encompasses providing safe products and clear, prominent warnings of foreseeable risks to consumers.
- Reasonable consumer expectations are relevant when determining potential liability in product liability claims.
- Industry standards inform but do not determine the sufficiency of safety measures; businesses must still ensure customer welfare.
- Businesses must balance product quality against consumer safety and implement risk mitigation through effective communication and preventative measures.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that McDonald’s breached its duty of care by failing to provide adequate warnings about the risk of scalding from its hot beverages, highlighting the necessity of clear risk communication and aligning product practices with consumer safety expectations in the food service industry.


Bogle v McDonald's Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490