Summary: Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Restaurants

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.

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.

While employed at the Hershey Chocolate USA, Turners claims have been essential accommodation on defendant. In this case the looking the material facts in the light most favorable to the Turner, it is difficult to conclude the material of the law, based on the evidence that Turners directly threaten to its employees or place an “Undue hardship” on Hershey. Therefore, the question whether Turners can perform the essential function of her position with reasonable accommodation is an open material fact for trial. Hershey will have a opportunities at trial to defeat Turners claim by presenting that her proposed accommodation would make vulnerable the health safety of its employees therefore an employer is not requires to accommodate an employee. Moreover, According to Buskirk, 307 F.3d at 168 case that it would carry out an undue hardship that even with the accommodation Turner would still be unable to perform work on lines 8 and 9. This matter should be used by a jury based upon fully developed evidence

Use the BUGusa, Inc. scenarios and your research to support your answers to the questions listed in the worksheet, classifying the types of torts in each scenario.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

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

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.

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.

In the Case McDonald v. City of Chicago resident Mr. Otis McDonald is a 76 year old retired engineer who has lived in his neighborhood for about 40 years. Over time his peaceful community has been overtaken by gangs and drug dealers. His home and property have been littered on a regular basis and his garage has been broken to about 5 times. Mr. McDonald legally owns a shotgun but believed it would be “unwieldy in event of a robbery.” So he wanted to purchase a simple handgun. But living in Chicago in at this time he was unable to purchase one, due to Chicago’s requirement that all firearms to be registered to the city, McDonald was unable to register the purchased handgun when Chicago started to refuse all handgun registration requests since the citywide handgun ban was passed in 1982. McDonald and three other Chicago residents joined up and made a lawsuit which became McDonald v. City of Chicago, a court case to allow him and Chicago residents to own a handgun. The constitutional issue at hand is the violation of the second amendment rights to bear arms (firearms). Using the Fourteenth Amendment, McDonald will be able to make his case protecting his right from infringement by local governments.

Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that frivolous lawsuits are out of control in America

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.

The jury decided that the plaintiff was entitled to both compensatory damages of $200,000, reduced by $40,000 for her own negligence, and punitive damages totaling $2.7 million (Gerlin, 1994, p.1). Gerlin (1994) goes on to state that “the jury found that McDonald’s had engaged in willful, reckless or malicious conduct” and subsequently used that for the basis of their punitive damages (p. 2). The number settled on was equivalent roughly to two days worth of coffee sales companywide (Gerlin, 1994, p.2). The jury concluded that McDonald’s behaved callously and punished them accordingly (Coffin, 2004, p.4). The jury decided the warning on the cup was insufficient for the hazard (Press, 1995, p.33).

Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.