Hello Professor Rose and fellow Blackboard Students,
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.
Do you believe that it’s possible for coffee to be unreasonably dangerous?
Yes, I do believe that it is possible for coffee to be unreasonably dangerous. After listening to the movie link and another DemoracyNow.org YouTube video link about the “infamous McDonald’s coffee case”, I was not aware on how McDonald’s was “brewing their coffee at a temperature of 180 degrees to 190 degrees” (DemoracyNow.org, 2011). I cannot remember the last time that I actually purchased a cup of coffee at McDonald’s, but I can remember when I did purchase a cup of coffee, that I have always had to wait awhile before I could drink from the cup that was steaming too hot.
Do you believe that the jury’s award of $2.7 million, for third-degree burns was excessive?
No, I do
…show more content…
In the DemoracyNow.org video link, it was stated that the McDonald’s lawyers provided a list of seven hundred other customers’ names, who in the past ten years had made complaints against McDonald’s stating their brewed “hot cup of coffee” was too hot. McDonald’s serves over a million cups of coffee worldwide, so the two million and seven hundred thousand dollar jury’s award was the two days’ worth of coffee sales that McDonald’s had to pay for brewing their product “the cup coffee” too
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
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.
Whether you get you a venti, grande or a tall at Starbucks they hand you just a cup right? In the article “Starbucks Cups Much Abrew About Nothing” the author explains how the uproar has grown about the latest Christmas cup that has hit the stores nationwide. In the Hartford Courant, published on November 17th, the article is gearing towards people who drink Starbucks regularly or people who wait all year for the special holiday drinks and explain to them the trap made by the liberal media to make the “Christians look stupid.” The author delivers the article in a conversational and organized piece paired with vivid sarcasm to express their amazement with all the hype over a
The facts of the case are now more readily available thanks to the internet. When the story first broke in 1992 the internet was still in its infancy. Most of the media coverage at the time came from print and television coverage and most of that was not comprehensive at all. The initial jury award of almost 3 million dollars was sensational, grabbing headlines all over the world. Now with the advent of the internet in its modern form the facts are coming out about what actually happened. It turns out that Mrs. Liebeck was actually injured far more seriously than most realize and received far less money than was actua...
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.
Wenger, Y., & Rector K. (2012, June 26). Jury Awards Waverly family $55 million in Hopkins malpractice case. The Baltimore Sun.
What Is Tort Reform, Anyway? A User-Friendly Guide. 31 Oct. 2003. Web. 28 May 2010. .
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.
Starbucks takes the standards of business conduct very seriously. Starbucks “support(s) the global business ethics policy and provide(s) an overview of some of the legal and ethical standards” (Starbucks Coffee) around the world and in every store they serve their customers. Another important factor is that Sta...
Many people consume coffee at any time of the day all around the world. They come in many different forms, that could either be a benefit or a risk to a person’s health. How is it that coffee could hinder how people live? “Effects of caffeine and coffee consumption on cardiovascular disease and risk factors” by Anna Victoria Mattioli, takes on a perspective of cardiology. Mattioli speaks about how coffee can speed up the effects of heart disease. On the other hand, “To sip or not to sip: the potential health risks and benefits of coffee drinking” by Sarah R. Taylor and Barbara Demmig-Adams; take an anthropology and evolutionary biology & ecology approach.
Specific Purpose: To inform the class about how a cup of coffee affects the brain.