Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Case

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

In this essay, I will discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck vs McDonald’s Restaurant 's tort lawsuit, where the plaintiff was severely burned after wasting coffee purchased from the drive-through window of the restaurant, into her lap. I will explore the basis of her claim against McDonald 's and identify if the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Additionally, I will examine why Ms. Liebeck 's lawyers believed that McDonald 's was liable to Ms. Liebeck. Likewise, I will reveal whether or not I think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give the consumer third-degree burns. Finally, I will disclose how the jury decides the case and why I think the jury decided the case this way.

She initially requested money as much as $20,000 to McDonald's to pay for her. It included past medical expenses, the future expectation of expenses, and loss of her daughter income during care. Whereas, McDonald's offered only $800. She decided to go to trial and hired attorney Reed Morgan. This case was filed in court. It was accusing McDonald's of gross negligence of “selling coffee that was unreasonably dangerous and defectively manufactured. It was a tort for a strict liability case. McDonald's refused attorney's second offer of $90,000. Morgan thirdly offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle” (wikipedia.org; quizlet.com).

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.

The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's is only one of many lawsuits that end up in the person getting a big paycheck for something that the company had no control over. Many instances are of people purposefully falling

On Friday, October 13, at around 11:00 pm, RA Gabriella McDonald and RA Tyler Shaw were writing an incident report for a violation of quiet hours in room 216. While entering the names of the Otterbein students, they noticed that neither Resident Isabel Sentle nor Resident Sydney Young were present at the time of the incident. RA McDonald and RA Shaw contacted SHD Steve Palombo, who informed them that the two residents would need to be documented as well, despite not being present. RA McDonald went upstairs to see if they were in the room yet and to explain the situation, but the room was empty when she arrived. She slipped the red cards underneath the door. While writing the incident report, Resident Sentle stopped by the RA office to ask RAs

(Cheeseman2013) In the Massey v Starbucks case Kenya Massey and her boyfriend visited a Starbucks the two orders drinks after paying for the drinks the two took a seat in the waiting area of the store waiting for their drinks to be prepared. That when the manager the shift manager Karen Morales came out a stated they could not sit down because the store was closing. Massey, who had still not received her drinks, informed Morales that she had paid for her dinks, and that she and her boyfriend intended to sit and enjoy them in Starbucks. Morales instructed Starbucks the employee Melissa Polanco to cancel Massey's beverage order and refund Massey's money.

In the case of Hines v. Overstock the plaintiff Cynthia Hines portrayed a class action lawsuit against the defendant Overstock.com, Inc.’s for charging a restocking fee in the federal district court in New York. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the contract when the defendant charged a restocking fee without her knowledge. The Plaintiff bought an Oxygen 3 Ultra Canister vacuum from Overstocks website around January 8, 2009. The Plaintiff returned the vacuum to the Defendant and was refunded the full amount of what she paid, minus a restocking fee of $30.00. The consumer Cynthia Hines contended that she was not informed the vacuum could be returned without being subject to any restocking fees or additional costs. The defendant claims the users of the site agree to the terms of conditions including restocking fee, arbitration clause, and forum selection clause when they enter the site. The Plaintiff argued that the link of the terms are found on the bottom of the pages of the website not making it necessary to view them before she completed the transaction.

In this case the plaintiff asserts that on April 28, 2014, she purchased a cup of coffee at the McDonald’s Restaurant in Ishpeming, Michigan. After she left the restaurant, while drinking the coffee she detected a sharp object in her mouth which became lodged in her throat and caused her to choke. The plaintiff claims that she pulled her car over to the side of the road and removed the object from her throat and mouth.

The court awarded Mrs. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, but was reduce by the 20 percent she was at fault for, which resulted in a final $160,000 in compensatory damages. In addition she was award punitive damages, which means that this amount was awarded to her as a punishment to the defendant and to serve as a deterrent for the defendant and other in the future. Mrs. Liebeck was originally awarded $2.7 million by the jury, but was reduce $480,000. In the Mrs. Liebeck won a lot of money and put a world wide corporation in the spotlight, and influenced the overwhelming warning label

Before the court is a negligence claim against Interstate, who filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. When determining if the court should accept the motion to dismiss, it must first examine if the contact was purposefully directed at the forum state by the defendant so as to abide by the notion of fair warning. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). When determining if the contact is purposeful in a tort claim the standard is a tortious contact intentionally directed to purposefully produce a tortious effect in the forum state. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984). Determining if a contact is purposeful relies on what it is not; it is not foreseeable. Mere foreseeability of causing injury is not a

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.

This will be a discussion on the relationship with consumers and the products they buy from corporations. What, if any are the corporations responsibility to the consumer in regards of warranties and safety. The case discussed will be Hot Coffee (Brusseau, 2012). This case began between a seventy-nine year old women and the McDonalds corporation. The women burned herself with hot coffee sold by McDonalds and she sued.

In world news Louis Woodward was charged and convicted of man slaughter. The British Royal Nanny was only 20 years old when she killed an eight month old baby. Upon her return to Britain she claimed that she had an unfair trial because of the “Widespread hostile press coverage”(Daniel 1437). North Korea also admits to selling missiles around the world. “We will continue to keep testing and deploying missiles” said a reporter in Seoul. North Korea aims to obtain foreign money from the selling of missiles (Times wire reports). Mcdonald’s launches first global kids’ meal offer. In over 110 countries children will receive one of eight toys free with the purchase of a happy meal. This was followed by a McDonalds 94 cent slip in the stock market after they fired over 700 employees (New York Times).

This assignment is regarding the Liebeck vs McDonalds case back in 1992. The issues involved are discussed thoroughly as well as the difference between consumer protection laws in Malaysia and also the United States where the case took place. This assignment will also discuss the implications of the case and also businesses/consumers responsibility when handling accident prone products.