Is Ritenbaugh's Theories Of Causing Harm Or Death?

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 Laaperi v Sears case involves product liability. In this case, a man named Laaperi purchased from Sears a smoke detector to place in his home. The detector was sold by the Sears store but was “manufactured by the Pittway Corporation” (United States Court of Appeals, 1985) and Laaperi installed the detector in one of the two bedrooms in his home upstairs. What happened just days after Christmas was devastating. “Early in the morning of December 27, 1976, a fire broke out in the Laaperi home. The three boys in one of the upstairs bedrooms were killed in the blaze. Laaperi's 13-year-old daughter Janet, who was sleeping in the other upstairs bedroom, received burns over 12 percent of her body and was hospitalized for three weeks” (United States Court of Appeals, 1985). The whole family trusted the smoke detector would work and thought they would save their lives if a fire like that ever happened. Unfortunately, it did not .

The breach of contract filed by McDonalds against Simon Marketing was eventually tossed out of court as the US District Justice ruled the case did not belong in federal court. Simon Marketing filed suit against McDonalds on October 23, 2001 asking for 1.9 billion in damages on charges of fraud, breach of contract, breach of licensing agreement and defamation. Simon Marketing alleged that by keeping them in the dark during the nearly year long FBI investigation, McDonald’s ran a fraudulent campaign to intentionally destroy Simon for its own public relations and financial benefit.” (Anonymous, 2002, para. 3-6).

5. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points)

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

Indubitably, the company wronged the consumers and passengers by violating their rights to not be killed in a car fire and their right to minimal health

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

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.

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

The Macdonald coffee scolding case exemplifies the need for companies to pay attention to quality control policies within their respective companies, as well as pay attention to their customer’s opinion. While taking into consideration that accidents happens when you least expect, I am inclined to say that customer should bear some of the blame (very little of the blame).Macdonald on the other hand, based on the handing of their customers complaints regarding their injuries while consuming product or while in the process of consuming their products makes it difficult to not to hold the company liable for the damages suffered by the client. In addition, it seems MacDonald actions were unethical because they were sure the customer, like some

Firstly, it’s hard for us who are consumers to sue food manufacturers in they harmed our health since we don’t have enough evidence. As an illustration, a fourteen-year-old girl decided to accuse HFCS manufacturers who acted not responsibly to their consumers as they deliberately lie consumers about how HFCS will lead people to have type 2 diabetes (Wicker 5). She required five million dollars as her compensation, consisting of type 2 diabetes, less enjoyment in life, more pain and suffering, emotional stressing and lifelong medical complications (5). The court rejected her accusation in considering of no enough facts to prove the foods she ate contained too many HFSC (5). Similarly, two teenage girls put McDonald’s in court because of their

Lawsuits against McDonalds Unethical decisions The maintenance of ethical standards by each and every business is as important as profit generation. The most important asset for a company is its human talent. A company can compete in the market with minimum capital on the basis of it human asset’s capabilities, but it cannot stay alive in the market, even with millions of capital, without the support of its human capital. Paying less and taking more out from the employees, while violating government rules is an ethical dilemma of today’s society.

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.