Caveat Emptor Case Study

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.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

According to an online article titled, “What Is an Implied Contract” it defines the term as, “creating an obligation between the parties based on the facts of the situation. If the parties’ conduct or the circumstances suggests they had an agreement or understanding that created an obligation, then the law will find that they have an implied in-fact contract.” (Crowe, 2015). Based on this definition and the scenario that took place in the video, I would say that there was not an implied employment contract in this situation. From the discussion between Ms. Gaddis’ and Mr. Price, the viewer can gather that they both do not agree on what Mr. Price’s job role should be. For example, Ms. Gaddis’ feels as though Mr. Price should create the advertisement using the language that she felt was best for the agencies success; however, Mr. Price felt as though he

Determine the elements of a valid contract, and discuss how consumers and banks each have a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the banking relationship.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

However, Lambert’s Café is first and foremost a restaurant. In Coomer, the Court examined a case where a patron at a baseball game sustained injury after being hit in the eye with a hotdog thrown into the audience by a baseball team’s mascot (Id. at 188). The Court asserted, based on findings in Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Mo. Banc 1982) that “if a person voluntarily consents to accept the danger of a known and appreciated risk, that person may not sure another for failing to protect him from it” (Id. at 189). They then asserted that if that is the case, the plaintiff would not be owed any duty of care by defendant (Id. at 192). However, they found that having a hotdog thrown at one’s person during a baseball event does not constitute an “inherent risk,” since it is not a common practice during the performance of an average baseball game (Id. at 202). The Court concluded that the team “…[owed] the fans a duty to use reasonable care in conducting the Hotdog Launch and can be held liable for damages…”(Id. at 203).

I disagree with this decision because Christopher suffered second-degree burns which is more than enough evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee, and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects, and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would have

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

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

Implied terms of employment are terms, which are not identified between an employee and employer, these are broad terms, of which there are 4 types. These are Terms implied in fact, terms implied by custom or practice, terms implied by law, and terms implied by statue. Terms implied in fact usually used to make logic of what was written down in an employment contract

Even though the employees and manager have a partial responsibility for delivery of a malfunctioning espresso machine, Dorosin’s request was unreasonable. Replacing his malfunctioning Vapore machine with a much higher quality machine seems like a stretch. The higher quality machine, which Dorosin requested, costs $495 retail. Instead, Starbucks should offer Mr. Dorosin the price difference in a gift card. With a gift card for the price difference between his Vapore machine and the higher quality machine, Starbucks is displaying goodwill toward Mr. Dorosin while hopefully maintaining him as a customer.

Implied terms are terms that are assumed and expected to be carried out. They do not have to be communicated since it would be reasonable to assume that both parties are aware of them. To put this into context let’s take the example of the man at the restaurant. He orders his meal, eats his meal and then walks out the restaurant instead of paying at the end. He claims he was never asked to pay, so he doesn’t need to. He is in the wrong since it is an implied term that after a meal the customer must pay the restaurant for their order. If he walks out without paying he is breaching the contract and breaking the law. The restaurant are entitled to sue for damages and use the law against the customer.