Ard V. Kraft Inc

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

The reputation of Taco Bell was threatened in 2011 when a lawsuit was filed against them based on the beef used in their food. A resident Amanda Obney of California complained that Taco Bell advertised and labeled their meat used in tacos as beef when it was not authentic meat but a filling (Caulfield, 2011). Amanda claims to have purchased food items from Taco Bell and as a result, suffered pain and injury due to the beef in their food. There was then a consumer rights action suit filed that challenged the practice of representing consumer with a product that is unknown or unidentifiable to consumers. Taco Bell was accused of referring to the filling as seasoned ground beef and seasoned beef when a substantial amount of the meat was against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards.

We hold that a franchisor may be subject to vicarious liability for the tortuous conduct of its franchisee only if the franchisor had control or a right of control over the daily operation of the specific aspect of the franchisee’s business that is alleged to *135 have caused the harm. Because Arby’s did not have control or a right of control over DRI’s supervision of its employees, there was no master/servant relationship between Arby’s and DRI for purposes of the plaintiffs’ respondeat superior claim against Arby’s. Arby’s cannot be held vicariously liable for DRI’s negligent supervision of Pierce.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

Frigaliment Importing Co. V. B.N.S International Sales Textbook P. 117 Facts Frigaliment Importing and B.N.S Corporation came into agreement that B.N.S will provide chickens for sale to Frigaliment. The contract contained two separate shipments in which each shipment contained different weighted chicken. Frigaliment received the first shipment and noticed that the heavier chickens were older chicken that were meant for stewing not frying. Frigaliment immediately sto24pped the second shipment and sued that they did not provide the right type of chicken in which they were asking for young chickens. B.N.S (the defendant) states that chicken can mean anything as long as they are in the same

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

Customers were extremely angry and sales dropped dramatically, by almost 15 percent. Although the executives weren't sued, they caused consumers to distrust their sources of food and the government that regulates it. The leaders were held accountable for their reputation was ruined. The employees working in these factories weren't even considered being sued for the public know to go after "the big guy" or the major corporation. Although the employee doing the packaging, he or she is being protected by the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. This states that the entry level employ isn't responsible for their actions and are simply doing what their told. I disagree with the doctrine in this case for they employee re-packaging the meet know they are sending out potentially poisonous meat to the public. They are morally obligated to report what the company is trying to do and seek other employment. The economy is so low in some of these countries that employees feel as though they are trapped and have no choice. However, supplying the public with expired meat is unexceptable. Respondeat superior is ideal in most cases, but in this case is would be a travesty. There's an exception to every

The case continued from Thursday and started with the defendant’s attorney, Christopher Duggan, questioning the witness for Wendy’s, a middle-age man who works at JBM as a manager. The witness testified about the meat-making process in JBM, and was then cross-examined by the plaintiff’s attorney, Matthew Fogelman. Mr. Fogelman then called the plaintiff, Meaghan Fitzpatrick, to the witness stand. She testified about what happened after she bite the burger and what she had go through afterwards. The trial then proceeded to closing statements.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

In 2012, a marine project manager called Bellingham Marine Inc. (“Bellingham”) hired Major Engineering Marine Inc. (“Major”) for a project to build a travel lift pier at a harbor. Bellingham then hired a civil engineering firm, Moffatt & Nichol

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

In this case, BPI has sued ABC news for defamation after the network cladded the lean and finely texture beef of the company “pink slime.” These reports caused damages to the company and it drove customers away from buying the product. The damage was a major loss of $1.2 billion espeiclly because it was used in hamburger chains and by the National Scholl Lunch Program

The plaintiff, Mrs. Hatter, by and through her counsel, Margaret Reid, and pursuant to Rule 34 requests the defendant, Foods Deluxe, respond to the following interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for documents.

Food poisoning is a typical occurrence across the globe as there have been headlines of refined establishments having incidents of food poisoning. There are many causal agents of the problem including E. Coli, Botulism, Norovirus, Listeria, Shigella, and Hepatitis. If the restaurant or any other food handling entity is responsible for food poisoning, affected customers do hold the right to sue these establishments on common theories such as strict liability, implied warranty and negligence. The compensation for food poisoning cases varies depending on the extremity of the health impact on the consumer (Oyarzabal & Bracker, 2011, p. 237). The more fatal cases of food poisoning have been known to lead to death. Food poisoning has dire consequences for both the customer and the restaurant. There are several laws ranging from federal, state to local put in place to regulate the issue. There is an apparent need for controlling food poisoning due to its adverse effects on people. One of the laws that have been effective in controlling food poisoning is the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in liaison with the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institute for Food Safety and Health.