Summary Of Mcdonald's Case

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.

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.

When an ethical dilemma turns to lies. On Oct. 20, 2014, Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke shot 17-year-old Laquan McDonald sixteen times. Once the tape was released thirteen month later, the relationship between the community, the mayor, and the Chicago Police Department was shattered.

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

In a 2003 court case, “Caesar Barber v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al.,” Barber claimed he was unaware of the nutritional and fat content of the fast food he ate on a near-daily basis for decades, and which he claimed caused his multiple illnesses (Daily Caller). The people of the court ruled that Barber’s choice of food was the cause of his many health issues, not the restaurants which supplied the fast food. In this case, the court held the consumer responsible for his selections; however, the court’s expectation of personal responsibility in food selection will most likely become anachronous. The article “Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?” addresses the issue of rapidly growing fast-food chain restaurants, such as McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell, and the health issues that perpetuate from an increased amount of these restaurants. Anywhere we travel today, out of town, to a big city or a small village, consumers are bound to see some sort of advertising for fast food. Many billboards display life-size pictures of steaming hot sandwiches, fresh-cut fries, or an ice cold beverage. The streets are lined with bright, golden arches, fluorescent bells, or a red-headed, smiling little girl. All of these modes of advertisement draw consumers in, whether they be hungry or simply in a rush with no time to cook dinner at home, and feed them food that just isn’t up to par with healthy-eating standards. Notice, these restaurants don’t use force to bring customers in by the masses;

The Patrick Haynes case involves the violation of reasonable care, after being assaulted by three correction officers that caused intentional trauma and injuries to his rectum area. The details of the case are that inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted a correction officer after being written up for misconduct. Inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted the correction officer by throwing feces and urine in the unsuspecting officer’s face. Later that night after lights out, the three correction officers went to his cell, restrained him and forcibly inserted a broom stick into his rectum. The next morning he was found by day shift officers and transported to the infirmary. Patrick Haynes after receiving medical care sued with judgement being found in his favor.

Police involvement was necessary since security was unable to assist that night; security services are complementary since the guard must service all three of Ms. Miner’s complexes, thus encouraging the use of police with emergency situations. Ms. Miner was uneasy when she learned about the assault and personally emailed the Plaintiff to inquire about her condition and to clarify that damages to the unit be repaired. Yet, Plaintiff responded by placing the blame on her ex-boyfriend for the damage, claiming that he wasn’t a guest (Exhibit 7); nonetheless, Plaintiff reluctantly paid $2500 for repair costs

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.

Plaintiff Jeanette Myles (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 23, 2013, she fell into an open manhole in front of the property located at 4274 Foote Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. She claims that as a result of the fall, she incurred injuries, continuous pain, suffering and mental anguish, substantial medical expenses and lost time from work. Ms. Myles demands $100,000 in damages plus interest and costs.

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.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

The corporation I chose to discuss is McDonald’s. McDonald’s is a publicly traded corporation that includes the following domestic companies, McDonald’s, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and Boston Market. This paper will discuss the following:

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.

In 1954 Ray Kroc became the first franchisee appointed by Mac and Dick McDonald in San

• The phenomenal increase is facilitated by an annual 10% growth in the amount that Americans spent on meals away from home.