Corporate Liability and Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis between the Panamanian Case El Dorado Mac, S.A. (1998) and the U.S. Case Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994)

Abstract

This article provides a comparative examination of corporate civil liability toward consumers based on two landmark decisions: the 1998 Panamanian Supreme Court ruling against El Dorado Mac, S.A. and the 1994 U.S. case Liebeck v. McDonald’s. Both cases emerge from business activities targeting the general public, where foreseeability of harm and the duty of care are central. In Panama, the Court recognized a contractual duty of safety breached by the company, concluding that the omission of preventive measures amounted to gross fault equivalent to intent. Conversely, in the United States, the court grounded its decision on gross negligence and reckless corporate behavior for serving coffee at excessively high temperatures, thus justifying punitive damages. The paper analyzes the legal grounds, causal link, and treatment of damages in both systems, showing that while Panama’s model emphasizes individual compensation and contractual balance, the U.S. approach integrates corrective and deterrent purposes. It concludes that modern private law should incorporate a preventive dimension encouraging higher safety standards while respecting the boundaries of contractual autonomy.