Considering the case Mc Donald’s had received not less than 700 complaints and suits cases. Majority of customers wanted the temperatures of coffee to be reduced from the maximum of 190 degrees centigrade to a minimum that can be managed. Mc Donald’s quality assurance manager argued during the case hearing that it remains ineffective to reduce the coffee hotness since there is no definite reason. Considering the number of cups and people burned from the high coffee temperature, do not amount to high risks of reducing the temperatures. With such proof and defense, the jury felt not convinced to ban or call for temperature reduction in the coffee.
On the other hand Mrs. Liebeck is a victim of the coffee ban, and the original suite was seeking justice against Mc Donald’s. When she was hurt, she asked compensation of $ 125000 for medical and lost wages from Mc Donald’s who was willing to pay an abusive lamp some of $ 800. The figure attracted Liebeck to seek justice in a law court (Nizer 1996). In the court, the judges based on the evidence received could not make grand a rule for compensation that stated punitive destructions to the plaintiff $ 2.7 million. The defendant team reacted, and the judge minimized the compensatory and punitive risks. The victim’s body is full of permanent scars due to accident on burn by hot coffee. The restaurant is found careless with disregard to the human safety of its clients. The court reduced compensatory and punitive damages due to comparative fault of both parties.
Therefore, after analyzing the case at first, I thought McDonald’s was guilty of careless regard to human safety. The court unfairly fined McDonald’s against Stella who is the sole problem in the issue. She could have used common sense to confirm the temperatures that suit her needs just like other customers. However, the lamp some paid to Mrs. Liebeck was to keep the good name of the restaurant and McDonald’s.
Case two
Dogs are important animals in the management and running of organizations. Citizens have to care and provide for the dogs. Police dogs are treated with more respect since aid in sensing through sniffing drug components that machines and humans may not be able to identify. The dogs are protected under the constitution and its rights enacted to enable its protection.
Based on the case the constitution clearly states the functions and use of dogs that is for a pet, guard, and sniffing dogs. Therefore, the dogs are constitutional and in the case are hurt or molested by any form, the abuser should be dealt with using the applicable laws.
References
Nizer, Louis. "The Actual Facts aboutthe Mcdonalds' Coffee Case". Lectlaw.Com, 1996, https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm. Accessed 5 May 2018.
