0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Bogle v MacDonalds Restaurants Limited, High Court

16 April 2002
The issues

Burns – hot drinks – restaurants – OLA.

The facts

This was one of 36 cases brought against MacDonalds and all arising out of personal injuries caused by the spillage of hot drinks/hot water. The claims were all distinct but shared a number of common features and were made the subject of a Group Litigation Order in February 2001. The majority of the Claimant’s were children, at least 16 being 4 or under at the time of the accidents. Allegations were made that MacDonalds were in breach of their duty of care in serving drinks at too high a temperature. In addition, Claimants argued that there should have been warnings and that the cups and lids used were inadequate. Allegations were made in negligence and in respect of a breach of the Occupiers Liability Act and in addition under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, alleging that the hot drinks were “defective”. The drinks were served at between 75 and 90 degrees centigrade and the evidence was to the effect that drinks served at 65 degrees would be sufficiently hot to cause burns if in contact with skin.

The decision

1. To have served drinks at lower temperatures would have been to have served drinks at temperatures that were too low from the point of view of customers expecting hot drinks.

2. As a matter of fact, the cups and lids were sufficient for their task (specifically being made to retain a hot drink if the cup was tipped over whilst the lid was on).

3. The duty on the Defendant was not to ensure that there were no accidents involving hot drinks, but to take such steps as were reasonable to avoid or reduce the risk of injury. It was not in breach of that duty.

4. There was no duty to warn customers about a risk posed by hot drinks, since the risk was patently obvious.

Action Dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up