A. Compare and contrast the “Hot Coffee” and “Throwed Rolls” cases in 200-250 words. Try to go beyond the basic and cite examples of both similarities and differences you identify that relate to the concepts we have learned in class. (25 points)
The “Hot Coffee” and “Throwed Rolls” cases are both similar in the aspect civil rights, which are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment. However, it appeared that Stella Liebeck was discriminated against since she was an older woman and it was “her” fault she spilled the coffee. These cases involve tort law because it is a civil case that is brought by an individual to get money damages. Stella Liebeck received both $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.
…show more content…
However, in the “Throwed Rolls” case it was Troy Tucker had asked for compensatory damages of $25,000 from the medical bills she endured. This would be considered a quantifiable loss; however, after extended research I didn’t find if she was reimbursed. In the “Hot Coffee” case I believe there was a tort reform because society was extremely upset that Stella received the $2.7 million award in punitive damages and was basically being “bullied.” The night show hosts, several television shows, and even song referenced her lawsuit in a comical way. The “Hot Coffee” case can show the four elements of the case which are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Unfortunately, Troy’s case did not show the four elements of tort because of the assumption of risk. Troy knew Lambert’s is known for their thrown rolls and should assume the risk, just as if she were at a baseball field. B. Imagine Lambert’s not only sells throwed rolls, but it also sells hot coffee at higher temperatures than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck. Further imagine a throwed roll causes a patron to spill hot coffee into her lap, causing serious third degree burns. What damages do you think Lambert’s should be subject to in a tort lawsuit based on the Liebeck precedent? (Think about the different types of damages from your readings (such as compensatory), as well as the amount of $ damages for each type.) (25 points) The damages I think Lambert’s should be subject to in a tort lawsuit based on the Liebeck precedent should be compensatory and punitive damages.
For starters, a business should not be throwing rolls and have extremely hot coffee sitting on their customers tables. I have been to Lambert’s many times and there have been several times where the person throwing the roll miscalculated their throw and ended up hitting someone in the head, or hitting a customer’s drink. Actually, from personal experience, my family and I were all at Lambert’s one afternoon and my little brother Tyler (who was probably six at the time) wanted to catch a roll and ended up getting hit in the head with it. Trying to imagine them throwing rolls and selling hot coffee at higher temperatures than the coffee that severely burned 16 percent of Stella’s body is unfathomable. If Lambert’s were to do something like this and a little child just so happened to get burned it wouldn’t be considered comical like some perceived Stella’s case to be. According to Daniel Finney, “For starters, most hot coffee that is consumed by Americans is between 130-150 degrees Fahrenheit, which is still enough to make us cringe from taking a tiny sip and it burning our tongue. McDonald’s coffee, as well as numerous other fast food chains, serve their coffee around 180 degrees, which is about 30 degrees under boiling” (Finney, A Bad Brew: Misconceptions about the Hot Coffee Case, n.d.). Therefore, if Lambert’s were to serve their coffee hotter than McDonald’s coffee then they should pay severe damages to their unlucky customer. In Missouri damage caps are only in place for medical malpractice; therefore, there is no limit to how much a person can receive in damages. However, Missouri has a comparative negligence in which damages are reduced by one’s own percentage fault. With that being said, the person assumes the risks of being at Lambert’s and getting a roll thrown at them and possible knocking over their coffee.
Though, if Lambert’s coffee was not to “industry standard” on how hot they can legally serve their coffee, the damages would then come into play. The compensatory damage amount is determined on the person’s medical bills while the punitive damage can be based on how much coffee is sold in a day at Lambert’s. For instance, McDonald’s was selling approximately $1.35 million worth of coffee each day, and the award should be equivalent to two days of coffee sales for the company. C. Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's. But if her car had a cup holder, she wouldn't have been holding the coffee between her legs. If her sweatpants had been made out of a non-absorbent material instead of cotton, she wouldn't have been injured by the spill. Why isn't the car manufacturer or sweatpants maker just as liable as McDonald's? Or should they be? Or should no one be liable? How does the Palsgraf railroad accident case relate to Stella's case? (25 points) Honestly, I feel like no one should be liable in this situation because we all know coffee is hot, just like when we were taught as kids to not touch the stove because it is hot. The car didn’t have cup holders so where else was she supposed to put it? Her lap was the most reasonable option she had and it was unfortunate that she just happened to wear sweatpants that day which caused the burns to be more severe. McDonald’s coffee was too hot according to industry standards; however, Stella should have assumed the risk when she put that coffee in her lap. She knew that the car didn’t have cup holders and she wouldn’t have anywhere to place it so she could of went inside. Though, the same thing could have occurred inside. This was a series of misfortunate events that happened to occur to Stella. Stella was able to prove that the coffee was hotter than industry standard which aided in her winning the case and she was considered 20 percent liable for the coffee burns that she obtained. The decision of the Palsgraf railroad incident implies that if the railroad employees known that the parcel contained explosives, they would have been negligent regarding Ms. Palsgraf's safety, and the railroad would have been liable to compensate her for her injuries. Thus, liability is not involved in a case where an injury results from consequences of negligence that could not have been reasonably foreseen. The decision also implied that if the man carrying the explosive parcel been the one injured, he would have been entitled to compensation for his injuries. Therefore, the Palsgraf railroad accident case relates to Stella’s case by McDonald’s by the tort of negligence. A defendant can only be held liable for injuries to the plaintiff that are foreseeable. D. Lambert’s is still open. If you were the owner of Lambert’s, would you keep throwing rolls, or would you stop? Why? What is your cost/benefit analysis? What would need to happen to make you stop throwing rolls? (25 points) If I were the owner of Lambert’s I would continue to keep throwing rolls. Lambert’s is known for their rolls and people enjoy coming to their restaurant. They have made it clear that when you come to their restaurant there will be rolls thrown. Like the article stated, there is an assumption of risk when you got to places like this. When a person watches a baseball game they assume the risk that a baseball might possibly hit them. The same goes for someone who would come to Lambert’s, not to mention rolls are much softer than baseballs. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I have been to Lambert’s and every time I go they yell “Hot Rolls!” and the people who want one will raise their hands. However, there is always the possibility that a customer could be accidentally hit by one of those rolls. The cost/benefit analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. The strengths of Lambert’s is of course their thrown rolls and great tasting food. This technique generates a substantial profit to the business. While the weakness of this business is the possibility of someone getting injured by a roll being thrown. If someone were to get injured it could possibly ruin our business Honestly, there really isn’t anything that would make me stop throwing rolls because of how many people enjoy stopping by. Every time I go to Springfield I must stop and eat at Lambert’s. Maybe if someone were to die from a roll being thrown then maybe I would consider stopping. However, Lambert’s wouldn’t be the same and would lose a lot of business.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
Citizens of the United States of America enjoy a lifestyle of freedom unlike that of any other country in the world. Companies and businesses are expected to comply with the standards of the average consumer; with that being said, American citizens are much more likely to file a law suit than consumers of a different nationality. In the year 1994 alone, thousands of law suits were filed (FindLaw). The most notable case, with exception to the Denny’s payout, was Stella Liebeck versus the popular fast food chain McDonald’s. Stella sustained third-degree burns when she accidentally spilled a McDonald’s cup of coffee onto her lap. She spent eight days in the hospital, receiving skin grafts for burns on her pelvic region. Stella was awarded $2.86
Elauf, with the help of the EEOC, sued Abercrombie on the grounds of religious discrimination. The U.S. The legal questions in this case were whether an applicant can claim disparate treatment without first proving the employer had knowledge of the need for an accommodation and whether Title VII applies only when an applicant has informed the employer of a need for an accommodation. Holding: The Court reversed and remanded the 10th Circuit judgment. The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim.
Brown, D. (2012). An invitation to profile: Arizona v. united states. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 12(2), 117-127.
Disparate Impact arises when an employer's practices unintentionally excludes a protected class disproportionately (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995). A "protected class" is a group of people, with common characteristics, which Congress has determined must be protected from inequality ("On-the-Job Discrimination: Gender Discrimination," 2004). This paper will analyze the landmark disparate impact case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424, 1971) from its beginning to its conclusion in the Supreme Court. Included will be the facts of the case and the issues detailed, as well as the history of the case from initial filing to final ruling.
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
Civil right laws provide numerous examples on which individuals are protected by law. This paper provides simple examples of civil and criminal protection laws, by briefly describing a few civil right laws and the ways these laws may be utilized to improve or understand citizen rights. First, the student describes the sexual harassment law, which is explained in a simple manner but is violated none the less. Second, the student explains defamation, intimidation, discrimination and at-will employment. Finally, the student describes company procedures, policies and specific actions businesses should apply to evade harassment within their organizations.
1. What is the difference between Introduction 2. What is the difference between History 3. What is the difference between a's Planning / Preparation 4.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Choose one of the following topics and write a well-organized essay with evidence supporting the statements you set forth. Your response should be two pages, double spaced with a 12 font in Times New Roman:
In interest of paper length the essays have been narrowed down to include only central topics. First looking at similarities, then differences.
Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spice opened its first store in April 1971 in the Pike Place Market in Seattle, by owners who had a passion for dark-roasted coffee that was popular in Europe, but hard to find in the U.S. (Harrison et al., 2005; Venkatraman & Nelson, 2008). The company’s mission was to provide Seattle with the best access to dark-roasted coffee, and sought to educated customers about the product. As a matter of customer education and acceptance of the product, Starbucks grew and expanded into the successful domestic market it is today. Much of this success can be attributed to a focus on the total customer experience and s...