Liebeck Vs Mcdonald's Restaurants Case Brief

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.

Senior Management of PepsiCo is evaluating the potential acquisition of two companies – Carts of Colorado and California Pizza Kitchen – in order to expand the company’s restaurant business. If indeed PepsiCo decides to pursue the acquisition of one or both, they must decide how to align each of these business units in its historically decentralized management approach and how to forge relationships between the acquired business units and existing business units. In their evaluation, Senior Management is faced with the question of whether the necessary capital investment in order to purchase one or both of the businesses can be profitable for each of the acquired business units, but must

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.

About everyone at some age, at some point or another, and in some country has gotten a sample of American's symbol for fast food through the golden arches of McDonald's. This report will attempt to analyze the external and internal sectors that affect the company's success. The external analysis will provide opportunities and threats while the internal analysis will show indicators of strength and weakness. It will then follow up with critical issues, strategic alternatives, recommendations and implementation. The case studied is found in Appendix 2 of Mary Coulter's "Strategic Management in Action" book.

In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis. Under Turners proposed accommodation, each inspector could continue to rotate on the hourly basis, with Turners, herself, rotating only between line 8 and 9. Hershey has not put up with that because this is not practical or

Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight

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.

The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted to a new site on the body, and other medical assistance that reach over $100,000. She and her family tried to reach McDonals to get a settlement for the damages, but was welcomed with denial and lack of cooperation in settlements and coverage for medical expenses, so the family decided to sue the company for gross negligence.

The case is about whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. Similar to the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); the right to sleep and bare arms for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald a retired maintenance engineer brought a suit against the City of Chicago for depriving him from his Second Amendment right to bare arms. In 1982 a law was passed in the City of Chicago banning registrations for hand guns. But, there is also a requirement by state law to have all firearms registered, making it impossible for McDonald to own/register disown guns.

The case for Flagstar Enterprises, Defendant v. Maureen Davis, Plaintiff is, under the circumstances that a customer at Hardees who is under the protection of Flagstar Enterprises Inc. They are the defendant who is being sued by one Maureen Davis that found human blood on your Styrofoam container after receiving biscuits and gravy by a co-worker from Hardees. This had much detail displaying the trial comments and conversation between both sides. Flagstar brings about how there was no cause of action in Alabaman for “negligence infliction of emotional distress using Allen v.

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.

The McDonald V. Chicago case was argued March 2, 2010 and was decided on June 28, 2010. This case was a very large step toward citizens being able to “keep and bear arms”. The case decided if the second amendment applies to individual states. Most believed that the states could not overpower the second amendment with their own rulings. Otis McDonald, a 76 year old Chicago resident, felt that he was no longer safe in his own neighborhood. Gangs and drug dealers were taking over and he felt that the shotguns he owned for hunting purposes were not adequate protection. His home had been broken into five times and the most recent robbery was committed by a man he recognized from his neighborhood. Mr. McDonald decided that a handgun would be a better means of self protection but was unable to purchase one due to the Chicago city wide handgun ban of 1982.

The story of one of the most famous worker’s compensation cases, Karen Silkwood vs. Kerr-McGee, was the inspiration for hundreds of articles, several books, televisions shows, and a movie.

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.

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.