Friday, November 8, 2019
The US legislative system Essay Example
The US legislative system Essay Example The US legislative system Essay The US legislative system Essay The US legislative system is a wonderful source of fabulous cases. It seems that no other state has had so many bizarre lawsuits during the all history of legislative system existence. One of the most known cases of modern times is Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds. It’s incredible but a simple woman managed to sue large corporation, win the case while most contemporaries considered her claim to be hopeless. In this essay we will overview the core of the case and how decision on it influenced the US tort law.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â à ‚              In February 1992, Mrs. Stella Liebeck bought a cup of coffee at a drive-through window of a McDonalds in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was not the driver of the car and the coffee was spilled while the car was parked. That is, Ms. Liebecks grandson had pulled the car to the curb so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee and the vehicle was stationary before she placed the cup of coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the lid for the purpose of adding cream and sugar. As she lifted one side of the lid, the coffee spilled onto her lap. Immediately, the coffee was absorbed by her sweatpants. Her clothing forced what was later learned to be â€Å"super-heated coffee†against her skin.   (zurich.com/main/productsandsolutions/industryinsight/2004/march2004/industryinsight20040318_005.htm)The McDonalds coffee Ms. Liebeck purchased was served at a temperature of between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenh eit. For home use, coffee is generally brewed at 135 to 140 degrees. If spilled on skin, any beverage heated to between 180 and 190 degrees will cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds Ms. Liebecks injuries were severe. She suffered full thickness burns (third-degree burns) and scalding to her inner thighs, groin and buttocks. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns over 6 percent of her body. She was in the hospital for eight days and had to undergo extremely painful procedures to remove layers of dead skin, as well as several skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).Ms. Liebecks original intention was to obtain legal help in order to be reimbursed for her medical expenses, which were said to have totaled nearly $20,000. However, McDonalds refused to pay her medical bills. This led Ms. Liebeck to file a product-liability suit.     (canf.bc.ca/briefs/mcdonalds.html)The case was considerd as a tort one. Tort law is easy to describe at a general level and hard to define more precisely. Tort comes from a Latin word meaning twisted or turned aside, so a tort is an act that is turned aside from the standard of proper conducta wrongful act. If you punch your neighbor in the nose, run over a pedestrian by driving carelessly, or injure a customer by serving burning hot coffee, you have committed a tort. (Some torts involve only economic harm and not physical injury, such as falsely accusing someone of being a crook or using fraud to induce them to enter into a financial transaction.) All of these are wrongful acts for which the victim can receive an award of money damages. Tort law permits private persons to take the lead in implementing its policies. All torts cases are brought by private individuals or businesses, not by the government acting as the prosecutor. (Sometimes the government is a party to tort cases, but then it is in the same position as any other plaintiff or def endant.) The federal and state governments establish court systems to referee disputes, but private parties drive the tort system by their complaints and defenses.Thus, the tort system does not require a sons. Stella Liebeck and McDonalds, for example, not the Food and Drug Administration or the Consumer Products Safety Commission, drive the debate about how hot is too hot for coffee. Second, tort law is made up of relatively general rules, such as a rule that an auto manufacturer has to make a car in such a way that it does not contain a defect rendering it unreasonably dangerous. What that means is fleshed out in the context of individual cases and can be hotly contested, but it does not require the law to specify in advance, in tedious detail, how a car must be built and what safety devices it must containThird, tort law links the deterrence and compensation policies to the objective of fairness by requiring that the compensation to the victim come from the wrongdoer. Once an inj ury has occurred, it seems right that the wrongdoer should be punished and the victim should be compensated. There is a neat symmetry to the mechanism that accomplishes both objectives at the same time. If the wrongdoer is criminally prosecuted, the victim still bears her loss; if the victim has her bills paid by insurance, her loss is compensated but the wrongdoer gets away without taking responsibility.During the trial process, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. McDonalds own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or a bove and that McDonalds coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonalds had no intention of reducing the holding temperature of its coffee. Plaintiffs expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a warning but a reminder since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.A jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This sum was reduced to $160,000 because, appropriately, she was found to be partially responsible for the incident. More significantly, the jury members saw fit to punish McDonalds. The jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. This amount represented approximately two days of profit for the restaurant chain. It also represented the single most publicized aspect of this case. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000- or three times compensatory damages- even though the judge called McDonalds conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. Post-verdict investigation found that the temperat ure of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.                                                                                                              That was a slight description of the case. One can have his own opinion concerning the case but the jury decision can’t be changed.  (atlanet.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)To my mind the jury made right decision basing on the appropriate law. Tort law is desiganted to protect consumer from unprincipled producer. In our case McDonald appeared to be careless as it many times before received claims r egarding the temperature of coffee. And as a result of McDonald’s negligence Ms. Liebeck burnt herself with too hot coffee. At the same time there is one point that makes this case bizarre. Everybody who buys coffee at McDonald’s knows that coffee is hot, very hot. This fact might have been the core of McDonald’s defense but it was neglected by the quantity of previous cases and awareness of the company management about such harmful facts.I must admit that the jury, after hearing all the facts and arguments taught McDonalds and other corporations a lesson: If you recklessly make or sell a dangerous product, you will be held accountable. McDonalds suffered substantial, but hardly outrageous, financial punishment for its irresponsible practices. Mrs. Liebeck was compensated for her injuries. And folks like me are less likely to get burned. That’s exactly how our legal system is supposed to work. Thats also why the insurance, tobacco, and other major industr ies want to change it. They think it works too well. The age and consequences of the plaintiff’s burn influenced the decision of the jury first of all. The same would happen if a child had been burnt though the decision may have differed if it were middle-age person. The jury is always more eager to defend unprotected people such as old age, children, diasabled and so on.The jury’s decision helped not only Ms. Liebeck, after trial investigation discovered that McDonald’s reduced temperature of served coffee to 155 degrees; the case also influenced other potentially dangerous conduct: The Wendys chain reduced the temperature of its hot chocolate, served mostly to children. While critics of the tort system say that Liebeck vs MsDonald’s case was harmful to business, they claim that consumer shall be also responsible for the actions that lead to traumatizing. They say if, for example, a person burn himself preparing tea according to the instruction on the te a box, will he have reason to sue the Tea Company? It seems to be insane but it’d be the tea of the company that result burns. The only way to prevent such fabulous cases is developing of detailed instructions or warning for the customers to shift all preparation and consumption responsibility on them.If I were an owner of a small restaurant I would definitely change my serving policies. I would ask my waiters to warn customers that coffee, tea or other beverages are too hot, or I would decrease the temperature of serving beverages. Also I would add notices to the menu, like, caution: tea is very hot or chilly is very spicy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.