Mcdonald's Hot Coffee Incident

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

August 9th 2014, Ferguson Missouri, an unarmed black teen Michael Brown was shot, and fatally wounded by a white police officer by the name of Darren Wilson. As a direct result of deciding not to indict Officer Wilson, the black community was out raged! Riots, looting, and damage to businesses soon followed the judge’s ruling. The trial was unlike normal trials which were treated with more expedience in the process, the grand jury in Officer Wilson case met for three months and 25 days. (Buchanan, et. al. 2014)

On February 26, 2012, an apparently innocent teenager was shot as he walked home through his neighborhood late at night. The Trayvon Martin killing and trial has recently been one of the primary topics covered by the media in America. The response to the news coverage of the case has been staggering. Students have organized hoodie marches and created Facebook groups to protest the unjustified murder of the young man. However, is the American public as well informed as it pretends to be? Americans have an unsettling susceptibility to manipulation from the media. In 1991, a similar event occurred in the case of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, where Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, had his personal affairs put on display for

In the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, there were allegations brought forth by Rajae Nino who felt he was discriminated against by his former employer, on the account of his gender and national origin. When he was employed with said employer, he was given a copy of the company’s employment contract by the human resources manager and instructed him to read it and sign it without affording him any opportunity to negotiate over its terms. With most discrimination cases, “the EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation” (Walsh, p. 20), with this case the employer invoked an arbitration provision in Nino’s employment contract wherein the Court of Appeals decided the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. On the flip side, if the unconscionable terms were removed from the contract, the remainder of the employment contract could be enforced.

The United States prides itself on having robust, deeply entrenched measures implemented across its core agencies, including the police and criminal justice system, to safeguard against wrongfully convicting people who, after further reflection, are factually found to be innocent. As citizens, we have been educated to trust, among other things, that our systems protect the notions that one is innocent until proven guilty and that prosecution must prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, wrongful convictions are more prevalent than we might think. In particular, the publicity of hundreds of cases over the last few decades has put a spotlight on this indisputable

On January 24, 2017 I observed the court case of William Satchell vs. Johnny Griffin. The name of the case I observed was Butler in department 20 and the judge present was Michael G Bowman. I arrived to 720 9th Street in Sacramento, CA at 1pm and stayed until 4pm. I observed a murder case where I watched the defense attorney Johnny Griffin try and defend his client Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler shot and killed Carl Talent an innocent man. Carl talent was shot and killed and the defense attorney Johnny Griffin said the killing was a result of a heated argument. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin said Mr. Butler shot and killed Carl Talent due to self-defense because he was scared for his life. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin made clear to

In 1995, The People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, became the “most publicized murder case in history” (Price & Lovitt, 1997). From the very beginning, it seemed that the prosecution’s case against O. J. Simpson for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman was doomed to fail. There were inconsistencies in how the Los Angeles Police Department collected and preserved of evidence. They were also called into doubt about how they controlled the evidence and who they let have access to the evidence during

The O. J. Simpson double murder case, also titled “People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a trial in which James O.J Simpson, a former National Football League player was convicted at the Los Angeles County Superior Court of two murder offenses on June 12, 1994. He was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, a restaurant waiter at Mezzaluna. The trial spans for a period of eight months. The opening statements were read on January 23, 1995, whereas the verdict, which left Simpson a free man, was declared on October 3, 1995. “The Trial of The Century,” as it is commonly known, has been described as the most publicized trial in history. However, before Simpson could be arrested and prosecuted, they had to go through an investigation process with the implementation of some techniques used by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as this essay illustrates.

Pretrial publicity has been address by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began. Despite these admissions, the trial judge had accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict. The Court held that the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous (Bruschke & Loges, 2004). This court case set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors are biased. Because of the bias of the jury members, the defendant is not given a trial of an impartial jury, a Sixth Amendment right. Media coverage should still be allowed to report information regarding the trial, but only after it has begun. In this way, jury members will not be exposed to pretrial publicity that biases their opinion of the defendant.

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.

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the

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.