Macdonald Coffee Scolding

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

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.

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

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

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.

Individuals have a legal and moral right to receive compensation for their injuries. No corporation or entity should be permitted to have a negative impact on a person's life without being held responsible. The new legal division at Zanes Law works to ensure they are accountable for their

In Albuquerque, NM, Stella Libeck, a 79 year-old woman, a passenger accidentally spilled scalding hot coffee in her lap, which was purchased through the McDonald’s drive-thru. The incident caused third-degree burns around her pelvic area. She was in the hospital for eight days and was required to receive medical treatment for two years. With the required medical treatments, her medical expenses began to accumulate and her funds began to dwindle. Liebeck requested McDonald’s to

Next, Mr. Morgan "then filed a formal complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in New Mexico alleging that the coffee was defective because it was excessively, dangerously hot, and because adequate warnings were not provided regarding the risks of the coffee at that temperature" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 348). It is essential to recognize that "the claim was based on products liability law, specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code, alleging breach of warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). "The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages (on the grounds that McDonald's exhibited reckless indifference in selling the coffee)" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Once Mr. Morgan set the date for the trial, he attempted to settle with McDonald's for $300,000, but the company refused the offer (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Shortly before the trial, the judge ordered that mediation be used in an attempt to resolve the case. "The mediator recommended a settlement of $225,000, McDonald's refused, and the case went to trial" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p.

In the second case with Liebeck v. McDonald’s the issue of negligence is presented. Prior to

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.

There are many goods that are not appropriate for consumption but still are sold in the market and hence cause harm to the user. In such a case the parties which are involved in selling the good are accountable for the damage to the consumer. (Shugarman D; Beckman R,2005)

Australian Safeway stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1967) 162 CLR 479 (High Court) and strong v woolworths ltd[2012] HCA 5:

Jessica is directly liable for causing the accident and has to be held to the legal standards for her actions of reckless driving. WV Steel has will be held liable as the employer of Jessica Smith and of ultimately approving of her trip to attend the meeting. They will share in some of the responsibility associated with Jessica’s actions. “If an agent or employee commits a tort while pursuing his or her own interests, the tort is not within the scope of the agency or employment, and neither the

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).