In tort law, a duty of care is a lawful commitment which is forced on an individual expecting adherence to a standard of sensible care while playing out any demonstrations that could predictably hurt others. It is the main component that must be built up to continue with an activity of carelessness. Hot drinks, for example, tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are regularly served at temperatures between 160 degrees Fahrenheit and 185 degrees Fahrenheit. Brief exposures to fluids in this temperature range can cause noteworthy burns to the skin. I personally say that McDonald's did not demonstrate a duty of care towards Stacy Liebeck. Liebeck's vehicle was stopped, she was adding sugar and cream to the coffee, and coffee that is served to clients should be sufficiently hot that it tastes great yet sufficiently cool that you can drink it when its passed out the window. …show more content…
Hence, caps take away the power of judges and juries, who hear the evidence for a given situation, to choose payment regarding each individual situation. Rather, it puts these choices in the hands of lawmakers, forsaking this nation's history of individualized justice for all. A cap is typically characterized by a dollar figure. Caps are only used after an individual or a company has been found liable for their harmful actions. They don't have anything to do with "frivolous" claims. They apply regardless of how much legitimacy a case has, or the degree of
How was McDonald’s supposed to know that Stella would spill the coffee on herself? Coffee is meant to be served hot, just as blades are meant to be sharp. Stella suing for being burned by coffee is the same principal as a person suing a knife company after being cut by one of their products. The world is a dangerous place; many things around us have the capability to cause damage. Corporations should not be held responsible for any damage sustained after using their product improperly. McDonald’s could not have prevented Stella spilling the coffee on herself.
There are many different areas of law that require practice. Perhaps one of the most exciting areas of law is civil litigation. There are many different kinds of litigation that fall
The Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds Restaurants is one of the most talked about and well known cases in the last two decades. Even though the occurrence of Stella Lieback’s burns occurred in 1992, however, it was only two years after the occurrence that the trail for the case began. The parties involved in this case included, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, whom bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s drive-thru located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During the incident, Stella Lieback placed the cup of coffee between her legs. When she placed the cup of coffee between her legs she tried to remove the lid, which is when the spill occurred. At the time, the vehicle was not in motion nor was Stella operating the vehicle. She was simply trying to add creamer
It is New Year's Eve. Brenda and Carl are neighbors, Carl had a New Year's Eve party at his house and when the New Year arrived, Carl and his friends shot illegal fireworks in the air. The one Carl shot malfunctioned and burned down Brenda's garden. In this case Brenda suffered a loss (her garden), Carl inflicted that loss with his negligent behavior, as neighbors Carl had a duty to not allow his negligence to affect Brenda and because this duty was violated Brenda saw fit to sue for her loss. I rule that he has to replace the garden by paying Brenda 350$. Waldron would approve of this ruling because Brenda is not asking for an unreasonable number, she is only receiving what she lost. Waldron’s critique on tort law is that sometimes it is a matter of luck and the person being sued is faced with a greater punishment than what they deserve. My ruling would avoid Waldron’s critique because Brenda is strictly receiving enough money to replace what she lost.
Perry, Ronen, ‘The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts: A Descriptive
An unfortunate dispute arose between an old lady named Stella Liebeck and the chain food restaurant McDonald in 1992 when this old lady received an extensive burn from coffee supplied by McDonald. Differentiating its coffee with an excessively high hotness, Stella Liebeck bought a cup of this coffee and it was served why she was sitting in the passenger’s seat of her grandson’s car. It resulted into litigation because when this lady tried to add cream and sugar into the coffee, it spilled on her, and with it extremely hot temperature, Stella Liebeck suffered tremendous injury and was hospitalized for some time. This paper analysis the basis of Stella Liebeck’s claim against McDonald, discusses whether the tort was intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Also discuss is why Ms Liebeck’s lawyer believe that McDonald’s was liable to Ms Liebeck, whether it is reasonable for a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give a third degree burns, how the jury decide the case, and the reason the jury decided the way they did.
Love hired an attorney, Holmes to present her. Holmes agreed on condition that Love would refrain herself from abusing controlled substance. Holmes then ended the professional relationship a few months later. Love then alleged that Holmes was bought off on her twitter. The issue is whether Love is liable to her attorney.
I am going to write this paper on tort reform, what it is and its overarching role in the documentary. Tort Reform is defined as “proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring litigation or to reduce damages they can receive”. Another theme that I believe ties in really well with the idea of tort reform is the idea of how big of an influence money has in politics. Many people would agree that there are a lot of companies that would want tort reform so they don’t have to worry about losing millions of dollars.
I wholeheartedly agree with the McDonalds hot Coffee Case reading the facts that McDonalds knew that they were serving coffee well above safe temperatures to serve a hot beverage and had received complaints from over seven hundred people who
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 that companies could use these resources to better the economy, and even more ways it could better our lives.
It was 1993, the day Leonel Herrera was executed for a crime he did not commit. (Leonel Torres Herrera, 1) Leonel had been convicted of murdering two police officers eleven years earlier in 1882. He waited for his execution day for ten years before new evidence arose that was not present during his trial. Several advocates came forward stating that Herrera’s brother, Raul, had confessed to killing the officers before his death in 1984. Raul’s son said he witnessed the killings when he was nine years old. Despite this new evidence, Texas courts refused to reopen the case. They said that the evidence was just too late. (“The Progressive”) Leonel Herrera was executed one year later. Leonel Herrera was killed because of a crime he did not commit
The basis of Stella Liebeck’s claim against McDonald is strict product liability. Wikipedia defines strict product liability as “the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause”. Fortunately enough, Stella Liebeck understood the law and would not be intimidated by any mean or plot by McDonald to refuse accepting liability for her injury. Understandably, it was proven by McDonald research team that serving coffee as hot as that was not something palatable to many costumers even though costumers wanted the coffee hot; some wanted to consume their coffee immediately which makes it impossible to do when as hot as when purchased. Notwithstanding, coffee industry regulation suggest that coffee should not be hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), to avoid severe burn or other related injury. Stella Liebeck,
Capital Punishment, the sentencing of offenders to death through bifurcated trials (the division of a trial between guilt and sentencing phases), has been one of the most controversial aspects of our criminal justice
An answer is a pleading by the defendant that challenges the plaintiff’s right to the relief requested in the complaint. In most cases, an answer contest most of the facts in a complaint. An answer is a pleading and as such follows the same general format as the complaint or petition in the case (Kerley, Hames, & Sukys, 2009). Answers are prepared using the three formats the general denial, the specific denial, or the qualified denial. Answers can contain affirmative defenses.
The death penalty in America has always been a big controversial issue. There are many pros and Cons to the death penalty and the cons outweigh the pros. That being said the death penalty should be abolished. The death penalty has been around in America since the 1600s and it was brought here by the colonial government. Not every crime gets the death penalty murder, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, burglary, espionage, bank robbery, sabotage, and desertion in wartime are the only crimes that executions were carried out for between 1930 and 1965. In 1972 the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Death Penalty was unconstitutional and fell under cruel and unusual punishment which is protected under the 8th amendment. Between 1977 and 1983