I agree with the decision in the Stella Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants. Testimony in the case proved McDonald’s was blatantly negligent regarding the temperature their coffee. Key negligence facts in the case; • “McDonald's Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit; Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds. • Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement
have prevented the injury. What do you think? Was Ms. Liebeck more responsible for her injury than the original court decided? McDonalds was responsible for the injury and could have prevented the injury, because McDonald shouldn’t have ever serve hot coffee. Plus that’s one of McDonald’s regulations to not serve hot coffee. Ms.Liebeck claims “that the coffee was hotter through the drive-thru than it was when purchased inside the restaurant”. Ms.Liebeck is responsible, because the coffee spilled
A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit that is filed by a party or attorney who is aware they are without merit, because of a lack of supporting legal argument or factual basis for the claims (Legal). Sometimes, this lawsuit is pointed at an entire organization because of an injury or problem caused by something they provide to consumers. Sometimes, they actually win. A number of economic resources that go into these lawsuits, being time and money, is outrageous (Post). There is a multitude of other possibilities
McDonald's Case Study As organizations seeks ways to increase profits by filtering into international markets, many turn to the field of public relations as a way of reaching cross-cultural markets. Factors such as values, cultural differences, language barriers, beliefs, etc…in order to successfully promote an organization's products and services. Public relations practitioners have the responsibility to be the mediator between the organizations and public(s). According to Murphy and Dee (1992)
McDonald's is the world's leading food service retailer with more than 30,000 restaurants in 118 countries serving 46 million customers each day. It is one of the most well-known and valuable brands and holds a leading share in the globally branded quick service restaurant segment of the informal eating-out market in virtually every country in which it does business. Problems Faced By McDonalds And The Public Opinion Of McDonalds For many years, McDonalds enjoyed worldwide success built on a few
operates accordi... ... middle of paper ... ...v. McDonald's Restaurants that is regarded as a frivolous law suit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants). Works Cited Business Law II, Week II, Nature and Form of Sales. (2014). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from South Unversity Online: myeclassonline.com Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Doc Stoc: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/113680900/Liebeck-v-McDonalds-Restaurants Twomey & Jennings, . (2011). Anderson's Business
trial of Liebeck v. Mcdonald's P.T.S., Inc., (No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309), 79 year old New Mexico woman named Stella Liebeck sues Mcdonald's, Inc after suffering from multiple third degree burns. The injuries that Liebeck indure was an self-inflicted by spilling a cup hot Mcdonald's coffee that was obviously too hot if cause third degree burns. The issue of this case is whether or not Mcdonald's showed any negligence and if so, did it lead to the unfortunate event of Liebeck injuries
In 1992, Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of hotter-than-normal coffee on herself. This coffee was acquired from McDonalds not too long prior, with the ensuing burns leading her to file a lawsuit two years later. The lawsuit resulted in Liebeck winning $2.86 million in punitive damages, with the amount making headlines across America. Many were shocked by the large sum, some even mocked at how easy it appeared to achieve. Regardless, this lawsuit has become significant in the social, legal, and political
Liebeck’s Case Dana Hoyle University of the People On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through
recent judicial tort reform. It was a product liability lawsuit which took place in 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff Stella Liebeck. She was a 79-year-old woman who had suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. The jury issued a list of damages which
Buffalo Creek and the question of punitive v. compensatory damages Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then