Pine Tree Inc. Case Study

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

4. Analysis related to hiring the outside law firm and sensitivity of the value of information to their prediction accuracy

This then translates to a 50% chance of not having inventory available during job opportunities. Therefore, opportunity costs might occur. The indifference of the production managers' in these aspects of inventory control is alarming and should be acted upon.

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. WILSON 'S ESTIMATE OF THE COMPANY 'S LOAN REQUIREMENTS? HOW MUCH WILL HE NEED TO FINANCE THE EXPECTED EXPANSION IN SALES TO $ 5.5 MILLION IN 2006 AND TO TAKE ALL TRADE DISCOUNTS?

Q.S.E. Foods, Inc., 60 Ill. 2d 552 (1975). The widow filed a negligence action against the store owner. The complaint alleged that the store owner negligently failed to provide adequate lighting in a darkened exterior area of the store. The complaint further alleged that, as a direct result of the store owner's negligence, burglars concealed themselves on the store premises and ambushed the decedent, a police officer, while he was in the process of conducting a security check at the rear of the store. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court reversed and remanded to the trial court. The store owner appealed and the court reversed. The court noted that the decedent, who was on the premises in the performance of his duty, was owed the same duty of care of care which the store owner owed to an invitee. The court concluded that the risk to which the decedent police officer was subjected to because of the conditions on the premises was not an unreasonable risk for a police officer. The court concluded that there were no allegations that established a duty on the store owner to use reasonable care for the protection of the

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

If you have any other concerns and questions, don't hesitate to write back to us for further assistance.

Because they have faced cash shortage trouble. Their profitability has grown for 1993 ~ 1995 period, as we can see from their I/S (e.g. Sales and Net Income, etc.). However, as its business size grows, their A/R increased, which means that it is getting difficult to collect cash. On the other hand, A/P decreased for the same period, which means that the company paid cash for A/P, resulting in critical cash shortage. Furthermore, the A/P payment period is shorter than A/R collection periods, the company’s cash problem happens to be accelerated.

Did Costco breach its duty of care to customer, Renee McDonald, by failing to adequately warn of water on the floor in an area which had been recently mopped, becoming liable for negligence in Defendant’s slip and fall injuries?

Please let us know whether we captured any information incorrectly or whether you have any additional comments you would like to provide.

​The issue at hand is whether or not Pine Trees, Inc. should compensate Mr. Washington for reconstruction and lose of potential profit. The stakeholders in this situation are employees and employers of both Pine Trees, Inc. and Burger Ranch, creditors of both companies, investors (if any), and customers for both companies. The issue will be observed from a Utilitarian, Deontological, and Nicomachean perspective.

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

How would you access Jack Lawler’s entry & contracting process at B.R Richardson? Would you have done anything differently?