Macdonald Coffee Scolding

In respect to liability and overall reputation of Tim Horton’s this is very important in avoiding future incidents such as this.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

After the inspection was completed, than that’s when everyone would have found out the truth. When it comes to issues such as this you want to make sure you are not taking the blame for someone else error. I give Schwan’s company credit for reacting so quickly. I feel they took it too far because they took the blame and did not know who was really at fault. The company assumed they were at fault, but nothing was proven at first. It was smart for them to do a recall on the ice cream and pull the ice cream off the shelves. Schwan’s company took the blame to find out Cliff Viessman, the tanker truck operator was responsible for the foodborne illness outbreak. Viessman hauled raw eggs on the truck but did not disinfect the truck properly. The company could have very well avoided a great financial lost. It was a learning experience for Schwan’s Sales Enterprises. They were able to rectify the situation successfully. Schwan’s company could have used the media to get the information out to more individuals quicker. Media coverage is the best way to get important information out in a short period of

Ms. Liebeck hired attorney, Reed Morgan, to help her with the situation. It is important to understand legal warranties and product liability to fully grasp the legal mechanics of the Liebeck v. McDonald's case. "Products liability refers to the liability incurred by a seller of goods when the goods, because

If a negligent act happens in a professional business, trade, the individual accused of the negligent acts are used and held to a much higher standard because that was the professional’s job and the training level. The professional has held out that they have knowledge more so than any other lay person. The

Liebeck vs. Caveat Emptor A.Villasmil University of the People PHIL1404 AY2018-T4 Professor: Cecil Blount Liebeck vs. Caveat Emptor In 1992 there was a case between a patron, Stella Liebeck, and McDonald’s Corporation (Brusseau, 2012). The case involved a hot cup of coffee that Stella opened, by gripping the cup in between her legs, and resulted in the hot coffee spilling and severely burning her. Fast forward to the end of the case, and we see McDonald’s Corporation held liable for the damages and forced to pay Stella Liebeck. During that time, the media had many opinions on who was right or wrong in the case. Many echoed an opinion that the hot coffee should have been an obvious indicator that the contents could cause harm. After all, when one is young they learn the difference between hot and cold and the dangers that come with each. It seems the notion of caveat emptor would fit the situation well.

Liebeck for spilling coffee in the first place because of faulty I will support him $ 160,000 instead of $ 100,000 a reduced compensation on the damages. I also suing McDonald focused more people than statistics, and concluded that they were not careless in handling the rights of consumers. Burger was supposed to be hot for consumption would have a different view in cases such as pickles burns. cause second-degree burns and was extremely hot pickle is permanently injured, however, it will still be the case in favor of Martin.

For example a dairy industry called Sanlu Group added melamine, a chemical that increases the appearance of protein in standard tests (“Toxic milk toll rockets in China”, 2008), to their milk powder which eventually caused “four babies to die and about 54,000 children have been found to be suffering from kidney stones” (Paul,2008). In fact, in late 2007, Sanlu Group had received many complaints from the parents. In spite of this, Sanlu Group paid no attention and continued to produce their products. In 2008, the issue broke out and Sanlu Group decided to respond, which helped them control and steady the situation. Despite this, the milk powder scandal was responsible for the severe fall of Sanlu Group’s reputation and they eventually went bankrupt. As demonstrated by the previous example Sanlu’s greed led to bankruptcy, largely because of undermining the importance of public image.

After reviewing the videos and reading the articles, Leibeck v. McDonald’s case involves the tort of negligence. In the textbook, The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, negligence is stated, “All persons, as established by state tort law, have the duty to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others. Breach of that duty, which causes injury, is negligence” (Lau, 2012, p. 223). Due to McDonald’s negligence and callous behavior regarding the temperature of the coffee served, Stella Liebeck suffered third-degree burns when she spilled the coffee in her lap. “Negligence is about breaching the duty we owe others, as determined by sate tort law” (Lau, 2012, p. 223). In fact, McDonald’s

I agree that the McDonald incident of hot coffee wasn't a scam. There was proof that the coffee was so hot that it could cause a third degree burn on a person, and so this happened to that lady who suffer from a burn. All she was looking for was compensation to help her paid her medical bills, but some people mocked her for her clumsiness, when in fact she wasn't at fault. This gave McDonald a hint to lower their coffee temperature, and to be mindful of their products' conditions.

I would agree with the jury on this case verses the judge. When the judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 it says in the book that it only was equivalent to "two days worth of coffee sales"(shaw 232) I feel like it was not enough. The jury wanted to send a message and I agree that a lot times businesses in general over look the risks of their products and it causes unnecessary pain to consumers. To me two days worth of coffee sales doesn't seem like a weak punishment considering if you do the math McDonald's does over $85 million in coffee sales alone a year (based on the figures from the case).

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

Unit 4 Assignment 1 “The Coffee Crisis” By Stephen Quinlan & Jose Gomez-Ibanez Case Analysis Michael G. Castro Capella University MBA6008 – Global Economic Environment Professor Hadsell February 13, 2013 Introduction Stephen Quinlan and Jose Gomez-Ibanez describes, in “The Coffee Crisis”, that in 2004 the governments of coffee producing countries were considering how to respond to rapid decline to coffee prices. In 2001, coffee prices hit a forty-year low, which resulted in extreme hardships for the local farming communities. On that note, this decline in coffee prices was considered “the coffee crisis.” The coffee crisis came to be thanks in part to coffees: overproduction, under-consumption and oligopoly market

Analyze the facts of this case and consider the ethical and legal aspects of this scenario by investigation MCDONALD’S’s Code of Conduct and laws relevant to this scenario.

Conclusions The case of Liebeck v. McDonald's clearly illustrates that companies must be mindful of not harming consumers through defective provides, because consumers that are harmed by products, have the ability to successfully win awards to be compensated for damages. With that in mind, it is recommended that Divine Coffee Shops reduce coffee temperatures. According to the Burn Foundation (2016), to eliminate the risk of burns, hot liquids should not be served beyond 160 degrees. The full article published by the Burn Foundation can be found here: http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3. To ensure that our customers are protected, we must implement a policy of checking the temperature of the coffee, before serving customers. The case of Liebeck v. McDonald's was been repeatedly cited as an example of frivolous litigation in the United States. However, to Stella Liebeck, the lawsuit was not frivolous.