Bogle v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd [2002] EWHC 490 (QB)

Between 1986 and 1998, D sold hot coffee in lidded cups to adult customers, and this spilled onto a person making up the group of C. The majority of persons making up the group of C were children at the time of injury. In all except one of the cases, the lidded cup fell either from a tray or table, with some content falling on C. In one case, child member C, aged 15 months, tried to drink an unlidded cup of hot coffee left on a table. C spilled the contents onto himself and sustained scalding injuries to his face, neck, chest, shoulders and back.

Was McDonald’s negligent in serving the coffee at the temperature used, failing to give an additional scalding warning or supplying the drinks in the containers examined by the court?

Finding for D, that customers are aware that coffee can cause scalding, and customers would reject coffee sold at safer temperatures. Serving coffee at preferred temperatures was not negligent. Furthermore, there was no need for D to warn customers of the danger of scalding since it was so obvious. The design of the cups was adequate for serving coffee safely. D was not negligent in choosing and continuing to use them. The hot drinks served within them could not be considered ‘defective.’ Both tea and coffee need to be served at scalding temperatures to achieve their best flavour. People generally prefer to obtain their drinks at these temperatures and leave them to cool and would not accept drinks served at safer temperatures. The law of negligence and occupier’s liability should not deny the public a facility they clearly want despite the general awareness that scalding could happen. Although D owes a duty of care to customers to guard against injury, that duty does not prevent them from serving hot drinks at all.

A product causing injury is not necessarily defective or negligently supplied. Bogle assessed hot drinks and their containers against reasonable safety expectations and foreseeable use. The obvious heat risk and the evidence about appropriate service temperature and cup design were relevant on the facts.

Bogle concerns customers injured by hot drinks, rather than an employer's duty to staff. It demonstrates how product purpose, ordinary expectations and practical precautions affect both negligence and statutory defect arguments. The conclusion was based on the drinks and containers examined, not a categorical immunity for food businesses. An unusually unsafe temperature, misleading warning or defective container would require its own assessment and cannot be dismissed by citing Bogle without examining the evidence.