Lambert 's Cafe 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.

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

I was immediately intrigued from the beginning of Food, Inc. There was interesting and valuable information brought up during the film. Many people do not think about where their food comes from. I believe that if people were to know where their food comes from, they would not want to eat it. There are 47,000 products at a grocery store. But, Food, Inc. implies that this is in fact an illusion because all of them are made with the same crops. The fact that there are only a few multi-national corporations that control all of the crops and meat production is a huge surprise. I believe that each person in society would be absolutely shocked if they were to watch this documentary.

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;

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

Our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Incorporation, leased a vehicle to Jeffery Calkin. The Defendant, Mr. Calkin was involved in a collision by failing to stop at a stop sign, therefore colliding with Jane White, the Plaintiff. Ms. White filed a negligence law suit against Mr. Calkin and Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. In the complaint, the Plaintiff claims that our client is required to carry insurance under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act and therefore, has the duty to assume liability for the Defendant’s negligent collision. This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

Q.S.E. Foods, Inc., 60 Ill. 2d 552 (1975). The widow filed a negligence action against the store owner. The complaint alleged that the store owner negligently failed to provide adequate lighting in a darkened exterior area of the store. The complaint further alleged that, as a direct result of the store owner's negligence, burglars concealed themselves on the store premises and ambushed the decedent, a police officer, while he was in the process of conducting a security check at the rear of the store. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court reversed and remanded to the trial court. The store owner appealed and the court reversed. The court noted that the decedent, who was on the premises in the performance of his duty, was owed the same duty of care of care which the store owner owed to an invitee. The court concluded that the risk to which the decedent police officer was subjected to because of the conditions on the premises was not an unreasonable risk for a police officer. The court concluded that there were no allegations that established a duty on the store owner to use reasonable care for the protection of the

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

To prove the negligence of the Big Slope Resort, Ben and Jerry must prove five elements of negligence. First, they must prove the resort’s duty. In this instance, duty is clear as Ben and Jerry are business visitors for whom the premises should be reasonably safe. Second, breach of duty must be proven. The resort’s failure to inspect the lift for guests prior to the shutdown satisfies that requirement. Third, the breach of duty must have caused damages. Ben and Jerry suffered physical injuries as a result of being stranded. Fourth, the breach of duty must have been the proximate cause of the damages. In other words, the breach of duty must be closely linked with the resulting damages. For this case, the actions of the resort were the only cause for the injuries. There were no other factors separating the cause and effect. Finally, there must be damage or injury. Ben and Jerry suffered from frostbite and other injuries, which qualify for this final criteria of

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.

B. Because being struck by a cyclist is an inherent risk of rollerblading, Alice owed no duty of reasonable care toward Pete to take precautions to avoid that risk. However, Alice has violated her duty not to act willfully or recklessly. Therefore, Alice will be fully liable for the harm she caused.

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.

Pam’s Pizza shop is not liable for the man’s injuries. Normally, in similar cases, the doctrine of Respondeat Superior may apply. However, Joey’s fails to meet the four tests that courts have used to determine whether an employee’s conduct is within the scope of his or her employment. Granted, it did occur substantially within the time and location authorized, however, the fact that he went to his niece’s birthday was not all in part motivated by the purpose of serving his employer and it was not in any way the kind of work he was employed to do. Therefore, I believe Joey was more on a “frolic” of his own and his act was not within the scope of employment because it occurred within an independent course of conduct not intended by the employee