As we go about our daily lives we interact with a variety of products and services, many of which are key parts into how we live. We trust the policies, procedures and laws that are in place within society to protect us is the event we are to incur harm. The issue of product liability has become increasingly prominent in the news and has left many individuals wondering how safe the products we use daily are. The issue of tort and product liability was no more aware than the case of Gladys Escola, Respondent, v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno. It highlighted how issues that are interpreted as isolated could become a bigger problems and lead to large litigation cases. In papers filed with the Supreme Court of California on July 5, 1944. Plaintiff Gladys Escola a waitress claims she was unloading bottles of Coca Cola that had been delivered a day prior she states that on attempting to place one of the bottles in the refrigerator the bottle exploded in her hand and the jagged pieces placed a deep five inch cut in hand. Leaving her with separated blood vessels and nerves. She sought to get monetary compensation for what she thought was negligence on the part of the Coca Cola Company for placing too much gas or carbonation in the glass bottles leaving them with the potential to explode. …show more content…
“A pressure test is made by taking a sample from each mold every three hours — approximately one out of every 600 bottles — and subjecting the sample to an internal pressure of 450 pounds per square inch, which is sustained for one minute. (The normal pressure in Coca Cola bottles is less than 50 pounds per square inch.) The sample bottles are also subjected to the standard thermal shock test. The witness stated that these tests are "pretty near" infallible.” (Supreme Court of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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 reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
In Herbert’s and Seaver’s letters (1970), Herbert writes to Seaver discussing Seaver’s commercial use of the line “It’s the Real Thing” for Mr. Haskin’s book without “consent” from the Coca-Cola company: Seaver’s letter is a reply discussing the misunderstanding for the line. The speaker of both letters utilizes a different approach to explain to each other their justification of Coca-Cola’s ownership for the line and commercial use of it. Herbert’s letter contains a condescending and arrogant tone; because of this, Seaver replied back in a satirical, sarcastic, and an almost amused tone.
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.
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
The sisters, Linda Hagan and Barbara Parker, were both agreed that the taste of the Coke that they drank from a bottle is flat. As Hagan held the bottle up to the light, she and Parker thought that a used condom with “oozy stringy stuff coming out on top” was inside the bottle. In return, both women were distressed because they had consumed some foreign material, and Hagan immediately became nauseated. The next day, the two concerned women went to the health care facility; there were given shots and tested for HIV as per advised by the medical personnel of the facility. However, the results of the HIV test at that time they went to the facility and after six months were both negative. The sisters filed
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
Our investigation revealed that the there is no evidence that the 12oz Coca-Cola Classic can was defective resulting in the damages to your carpet. The can was manufactured on 05/14/2014 and the incident occurred on 2/10/16 which is past the optimum taste period of fifty-two weeks. The can had been in your control and procession for over a year with no issue, during this time period Coca-Cola had no control on how the can was being handled. I extended a customer service gesture offer to
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, ).
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
The Porter’s model of competitive advantage of nations is based on four key elements including factor endowments, demand conditions, related and supporting industries and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. This makes it suitable in understanding the competition existing in the soft drinks industry in the Asian markets. The factor conditions identify the natural resources, climate, location, and demographics. Coca cola and Pepsi enjoy the growing population in the Asian markets (Yoffie, 2002). A higher population guarantees the two companies adequate revenues. Other factors include communication infrastructure and availability of skilled workers. Most of the Asian countries are embracing new technologies that grow much knowledge of the diverse beverage drinks. Secondly, the demand conditions play a significant role in enhancing competitiveness for the firms. Both Coca cola and Pepsi are an
The major ethical issue face by Coca Cola in recent year was concerning sale of hazardous product which affected the health of few consumers including school children. This incident took place in Belgium where Coca Cola beverages found themselves in middle of an accusation of selling poorly processed batch of carbonated drinks which made initially 10 people ill and later the number swelled to 100 which also included school children. This was a contamination scare incident that took place in June 1999. This damaged Coca Cola customer base harming their confidence in the product as it was relating to the production and sale of hazardous product. Two main problems that were identified by the company relating to their production and distribution were ‘‘Off-quality’’ carbon dioxide that affected the taste and odor of some bottled drinks, and an offensive unusual odor on the outside of some canned drinks which were later identified as sulphur odor. This odor has an increasing intensity when the cans were placed in vending machines to sell.
Inevitably, there was a claim. Mrs. Louisa Elizabeth Carlill, on the faith of the advertisements’ claims, purchased one of the balls at her local chemist, using it as directed. Despite this, Mrs. Carlill contracted a cold. Her husband contacted the company, telling them how his wife had contracted the illness after using the product. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. in response, asked Mrs. Carlill to travel to them three times daily, for the 14 days required, in order to prove to them, directly, that she had been using the product sufficiently. Mrs. Carlill refused, having already used the product for the 14 days in the expected manner and proceeded to sue the Company for breach of contract (ABBOT 1892: 203).