Stella Liebeck Vs Mcdonald 's Restaurant 's Tort Lawsuit Essay

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.

We hold that a franchisor may be subject to vicarious liability for the tortuous conduct of its franchisee only if the franchisor had control or a right of control over the daily operation of the specific aspect of the franchisee’s business that is alleged to *135 have caused the harm. Because Arby’s did not have control or a right of control over DRI’s supervision of its employees, there was no master/servant relationship between Arby’s and DRI for purposes of the plaintiffs’ respondeat superior claim against Arby’s. Arby’s cannot be held vicariously liable for DRI’s negligent supervision of Pierce.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

While employed at the Hershey Chocolate USA, Turners claims have been essential accommodation on defendant. In this case the looking the material facts in the light most favorable to the Turner, it is difficult to conclude the material of the law, based on the evidence that Turners directly threaten to its employees or place an “Undue hardship” on Hershey. Therefore, the question whether Turners can perform the essential function of her position with reasonable accommodation is an open material fact for trial. Hershey will have a opportunities at trial to defeat Turners claim by presenting that her proposed accommodation would make vulnerable the health safety of its employees therefore an employer is not requires to accommodate an employee. Moreover, According to Buskirk, 307 F.3d at 168 case that it would carry out an undue hardship that even with the accommodation Turner would still be unable to perform work on lines 8 and 9. This matter should be used by a jury based upon fully developed evidence

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

The first case that is discussed is Liebeck v. McDonald’s Rests or “Hot Coffee” as it is well known for. Stella Liebeck suffered immense burn damage on her thighs when a coffee from McDonald spilled over her legs. She needed a surgical operation called skin graft, where a piece of healthy skin is transplanted to a new site on the body, and other medical assistance that reach over $100,000. She and her family tried to reach McDonals to get a settlement for the damages, but was welcomed with denial and lack of cooperation in settlements and coverage for medical expenses, so the family decided to sue the company for gross negligence.

The case is about whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. Similar to the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); the right to sleep and bare arms for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald a retired maintenance engineer brought a suit against the City of Chicago for depriving him from his Second Amendment right to bare arms. In 1982 a law was passed in the City of Chicago banning registrations for hand guns. But, there is also a requirement by state law to have all firearms registered, making it impossible for McDonald to own/register disown guns.

The plaintiff, Maureen Davis, sued Hardees restaurant under Flagstar Enterprises for finding Human Blood on her container after ordering biscuits and gravy, which was breached. This was under the act of an employee, Annetta Cohill, at Hardees, injuring or cutting herself and then having her manager wrap her cut, failure of duty to take more action of practicing reasonable care preparation and packaging of customer’s food under the wantonness claim.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

McDonald’s had as many as 700 reports of coffee that scalded customers, creating injuries (Gerlin, 1994, p.1).

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.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,