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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal