Disagree With The Common Law No-Duty Rule

Disagree With The Common Law No-Duty Rule
Common Law No–Duty Rule
In a legal point of view, I would agree with this law. To rescue a person or not, it's really depend on
the situation and it's hard to define a person's condition at that moment is able to save a life or not.
There are many examples that, someone is trying to help the others and end up losing their life.
There can be many reasons why people are not helping, and the law won't able to set a rule on
certain reason when a person should hold liability or not. Everyone can said they don't want to risk
their own life to help someone and the law can't said this is wrong. However, in a human point of
view, it's wrong not to do anything at all. Even we have the right to choose not to risk our life on
others, but there are many
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Essay on Persuasive Speech: Frivolous Lawsuits Are Out of...
Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that frivolous lawsuits are out of control in
America
Introduction:
A. Attention Getter
1. We've all heard the story about the woman who spilled scalding hot coffee on herself and then
successfully sued McDonald's. But we've also heard reports of burglars suing homeowners after
injuring themselves during a robbery. Most of us laugh off these stories as urban legends made to
show the ridiculousness of frivolous lawsuits, but you might be surprised, however by how many of
these are true.
B.
1. Let's face the facts: In America, anyone can sue anybody over anything at anytime
B. Thesis
1. In order to increase your awareness of how the lawsuit craze sweeping the nation has gotten ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
C. Or how about the man who sued Anheuser–Busch for false and misleading advertising?
1. The advertisements for Busch pictured fantasies of beautiful women in tropical settings that came
to life for men while drinking Bud–Light.
2. When Richard Overton finally realized these fantasies were never going to come true, despite
how much beer he consumed, he sued the company not only for false advertising, but also for
emotional stress, mental injury, and financial loss of over ten thousand dollars.
3. Overton also became physically sick after drinking more and more beer, waiting for the fantasies
to come to life.
D. Heard a wrong weather prediction lately?
1. Then why haven't you sued the television station and weatherman yet?
a. A woman in Israel won a case against a local TV station and its weatherman when he predicted
that it was going to be a sunny day, but it in fact ended up raining.
b. The woman claims that she left home lightly dressed because of this weather forecast.
1. Resulting from this, she caught the flu, missed four days of work, had to spend money on
medication, and suffered from stress.
C. Austin Aiken sued NBC because of a distasteful episode of "Fear Factor" that he watched.
1. The judge threw out this case in which Aiken claimed that the episode caused him suffering,
injury, and great pain.
2. On the show the contestants were eating rats mixed in a blender, which

What Are Punitive Damages?. Punitive Damages, Also Known
What are Punitive Damages? Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages may be awarded
by the trier of facts in addition to actual damages. These damages are meant to compensate an
injured party for the loss she suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. Punitive damages
are awarded for three reasons; (i) to punish the defendant, (ii) to act as a deterrent to the defendant
and others minded to behave in a similar way, and (iii) to demonstrate the court's disapproval of
such conduct. The terms that characterize conducts that would justify these damages include fraud,
bad faith, willful, wanton, malice, outrageous, and reckless. These aggravating circumstances refer
to situations where the defendant acted maliciously, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Punitive damages were first recognized in England in 1763 to justify jury verdict in excess of actual
physical damage. The concept of punitive damages was articulated by English Court in Wilkes v.
Wood CCP 6 DEC 1763. The court referred to these additional damages as exemplary damages,
these damages were awarded to compensate the plaintiff for non–physical injuries, and to punish the
wrongdoer. As the doctrine of punitive damages was developing in England it was widely criticized.
The earliest American case to discuss the doctrine of punitive damages was Coryell v. Colbaugh
1791 a jury awarded punitive damages against a man who broke his promise to marry. The court
instructed the jury "not to estimate the damages by any particular proof of suffering or actual loss,
but to give damages for example's sake, to prevent such offences in the future. Since punitive
damages were first recognized and accepted in American tort law, they were the subject of heated
debate and skepticism regarding their remedial purpose. A majority of jurisdiction that authorized
the recovery of punitive damages adopts the theory that punitive damages serve two functions (i) to
punish past wrongful conduct; and (ii) to deter future wrongful conduct. Both theories are criticized
as being inconsistent with each other and for being inconsistently applied by the courts in particular
cases. The objective of civil law is to make the injured party whole, it was

Law 304: Mcdonald's Hot Coffee Case
Hot Coffee Documentary
JORGE A. CENICEROS
National University
LAW 304
CHRISTOPHER J. REEBER, J.D., L.L.M.
Hot Coffee Questions:
Did you know about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case before the video?
I heard about the case, and like most people, my opinion was formed with inaccurate information.
The information was provided via television and radio, but there must have been information in the
newspaper as well. Several radio talk shows used the case and their opinion to their benefit. People
from all over called in to share their opinion, similar to what we saw in the video. I remember I
share the same opinion with some of them, even though none of us had our facts straight. I was
transitioning from San Diego to Los Angeles when this was going on. It was very interesting to see
how different the opinions from one city to the other over the "frivolous injury" case. (A, 2016)
Regardless of the difference in personal opinion, none of the comments and discussion I remember
had any of the facts straight. 20 years after the case, most people still don't have the facts straight
from the case. Ant that is the real problem. We, the average citizen, do not get involved or even try
to find out more ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Plainly said, Tort Reform is caps on damages. Tort reform is not just one single idea or law, but
mostly it's a group of ideas and laws which are designed to change the way our civil justice system
works. After careful examination of several sites and blogs, it is obvious that Tort Reform is
extremely controversial. Several articles aimed at providing a neutral explanation of what individual
tort reform measures are, and the effect they will have on the court system and on citizens, if we are
not careful when we vote for these types of policy changes. (Admin,

Summary: Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Restaurants
Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants It is not uncommon to turn on the local news or open the
morning paper to the picture of someone who has fallen on a wet floor in a grocery store or has been
hit by a slow moving car. Often times, though not always, the potential plaintiff in this scenario is
looking to earn an easy paycheck by dragging an otherwise innocent individual or company through
tort. The often extensive process that ensues from frivolous law firms can give rise to much debate
in American government. Tort reform is a popular focal point of these conversations, that appeal to
law makers to not allow these false claims to endanger American companies who are then required
to spend significant funding to defend against accusations. Amongst the most famous cases that led
to a call for tort reform is Stella Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants. In this infamous case Mrs.
Liebeck, a 79 year old women, was driven to McDonalds. As she sat in a parking spot outside the
store she attempted to open the cup of coffee and insert several packages of cream and sugar. Mrs.
Liebeck accidentally spilled the coffee in the process, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is where a good lawyer comes in handy. Undoubtedly, the jury gained sympathy for a little old
lady who visited McDonald's for an innocent cup of coffee, only to end up in the hospital with third
degree burns. Furthermore, McDonald's certainly looked like a very cruel company when they
refused to pay the bare minimum the plaintiff asked for out of court – $20,000 to cover just the
actual expenses of what she had endured and would need for further work to be performed. In all of
the research material I have read on this case, one important detail is always mentioned – the lawyer
for the plaintiff suggests to the jury awarding Mrs. Liebeck the total revenue McDonald's receives
from coffee for one to two days, though no definite connection is made to this extreme amount

Summary Of The Liebeck V. Mcdonald's Restaurants Case
The Liebeck vs. McDonald's Restaurants case was one of the biggest tort reform cases. A tort is a
term used for a personal injury, which allows the injured party to receive compensation for injuries
and damages. The American legal system allows anyone in accordance to the law taking the proper
steps to sue a person or corporation that may be responsible for his or her injuries. This case is still
one that people argue today about whether this was negligence on behalf of the plaintiff, while some
argue this was a product liability case. After this famous case was over and utilizing comparative
negligence principles, state bills were created that limited the monetary amount that could be sought
in corporate lawsuits.
On February 27, 1992, seventy nine year old Ms. Stella Liebeck placed a cup of coffee between her
knees while sitting in the McDonalds parking lot because her grandson's car did not have cup
holders. As Ms. Lieback was trying to get the lid off to add her cream and sugar, the coffee spilled
on her sweatpants. Stella initially wrote McDonald's a letter asking them to pay for her ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Lieback, stated the coffee was excessively hot, therefore if was defectively manufactured. Stella also
stated the cup had design defects because it was it had no warnings. She also stated McDonalds
should be liable for the mental and physical harm which it caused. Ms. Liebeck suffered second and
third degree burns to her thighs, buttocks, and groin. The burns were so severe they required
debridement and skin grafting, which in turn caused mental and physical pain and suffering. As the
trial approached, Stella's settlement demand increased due to the medical expenses that occurred.
Approximately $10,500.00 at the time and future medical expenses was estimated to be
approximately $2,500.00. She also wanted compensation for her loss of wages. All together she was
asking for a settlement of $125,000. McDonald's declined to settle. Thus, this case went to

Lawsuit Against Starbucks
A local Colorado woman filed a lawsuit against Starbucks due to a drive–thru malfunction. The
woman claims that a hot tea spill severely burned her and also killed her dog. Her claim is that the
employee who served her did not secure the lid to her tea and also did not use the Starbucks sleeve
for hot beverages. Due to this incident, the woman was forced to undergo skin grafts to treat her
burns. The other tragedy is that after being rushed to an emergency veterinarian her dog died due to
the injuries he received from the hot tea spill. While this case occurred in September of 2015, it was
transferred from state to federal court on Wednesday September 16th 2017. During the trial
Starbucks released a statement that said while they feel sympathy

McDonald's Case Study Essay
McDonald's Case Study
As organizations seeks ways to increase profits by filtering into international markets, many turn to
the field of public relations as a way of reaching cross–cultural markets. Factors such as values,
cultural differences, language barriers, beliefs, etc…in order to successfully promote an
organization's products and services. Public relations practitioners have the responsibility to be the
mediator between the organizations and public(s). According to Murphy and Dee (1992), " Public
relations makes organizations more effective by building relationships with stakeholders in the
environment that have the potential to constrain or enhance the mission of the organization." This
role also involves ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The final stage is the active stage recognizes the problem and organizes something to do about it.
According to J.E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) the idea is to communicate with an aware public before it
actively opposes an organization, thus becoming an activist public.
London Greenpeace is an activist group with 3.3 million members in over 22 countries that use
highly visible actions to draw media attention to environmental problems. The London Greenpeace
group, a division of Greenpeace, is an independent group of activists that has no involvement in any
political party. This group meets weekly to "share concern for the oppression in our lives and the
destruction of our environment. Anderson (1992) cited that weaknesses in most case studies of
activism is that similar case studies should be conducted that examine activism from the perspective
of both the organizations and of the activists groups, which is applicable to this study of the McLibel
case. In my research, I came across must more literature and disseminated information from the
small activist group of London Greenpeace versus the large multi–national corporation of
McDonald's. This study also points to the need of more studies that examine the special problems of
international communication. The actions of a McDonald's triggered activist conflict not only in
London, but in other different countries as well.
"If public relations

Essay Mcdonald's V Liebeck
Liebeck v. McDonald's, also known as the McDonald's Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability
lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court's
awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from
McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US. Stella Liebeck, a 79–year–old woman was
in the passenger seat of her grandson's car, while she ordered a coffee from McDonald's. Liebeck's
nephew parked the car to allow his grandmother to add cream and sugar to her coffee. When she
placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her in order to
remove it, the entire cup of coffee was spilled on Liebeck's lap. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, this contradicts the
company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving.
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. 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

Angelica Keller : An Unidentified Flight Attendant...
Angelica Keller (Plaintiff) vs. Southwest Airlines Co. /Jane Doe (Defendants):
Angelica Keller: Resident of Smyma, Rutherford County Tennessee
Southwest Airlines: A corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, doing business in
Tennessee. A common carrier of passengers for hire.
Jane Doe: An unidentified flight attendant employed by Southwest, Acting within her duties for the
business of Southwest when the negligence occurred. Facts
The Plaintiff was flying on South West flight 955 on 28 Dec 2011, Seated in window seat of the
first, right hand row of the aircraft. This seat was immediately behind the bulkhead separating the
passengers from the galley. There were no tray tables available in the row of the aircraft the Plaintiff
was seated in. Jane Doe provided in flight services to the passengers in the Plaintiffs row. The
plaintiff ordered hot tea. Jane Doe returned with the Plaintiffs hot tea, as well as items requested by
other passengers sitting in her row.
Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper "hot cup", which was placed in another slightly shorter and
wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups.
Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with
their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin
and buttocks area as a result of this situation.
The Plaintiff sued Southwest and Jane Doe for a

A Critical Analysis Of The Uk 's Compensation Culture
A critical analysis of the UK's 'Compensation Culture'
"Does UK law encourage people to 'blame and claim'?"
Compensation culture is a culture where individuals try to get compensation for any loss, damage,
or suffering caused by another individual. This commonly stretches to include incidents that have
weak or insubstantial links between the claimant and defendant (Horsey and Rackley 2009). Lord
Falconer the former Lord Chancellor defines compensation culture as
"...a catch–all expression... it's the idea that for every accident someone is at fault. For every injury,
someone to blame. And, perhaps most damaging, for every accident, there is someone to pay" (Lord
Falconer, 2005). This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further
critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a
perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage
people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the
compensation culture. The tort of negligence was established with the leading case of Donoghue v
Stevenson (1932) . Donoghue got sick from having a drink in a café after finding a snail in the
bottle. Around this time, there was no route for litigation due to no contractual association. The only
contractual commitment was with Donoghue's friend who bought the drink and the café owner. Lord
Atkin quoted the Bible's principle of

Essay On Tort Reform
Tort Reform Yay or Nay When it comes to Tort Reform I am NOT all for this law. I think that
individuals have the right to compensation for life if they have sustained life lasting injuries.
However, it has been stated per http://www.hg.org/article that Tort Reform doesn't involve a single
law. Torts are known to be the "essence of legal wrongs that infringe the rights of another that leads
to some form of civil liability" each tort reform law is different but share the same goal. For
example: To make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit. To make it more difficult for
injured people to obtain a jury trial. To place limits on the amount of money injured people receive
in a lawsuit. The purpose of this law is to make it more ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
McDonald's Restaurants, the infamous McDonald's coffee case. A 1994 product liability lawsuit, a
New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79–year–old woman who
suffered third–degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap
after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. In reality this really should have taken
McDonald's out of business, However she was compensated 2.86 Million dollars. McDonalds is one
of the world's biggest franchises, by becoming one of the world's leading foodservice retailers in
more than 100 countries. McDonalds has more than 36,000 resturaunts serving approximately 69
million people EVERYDAY per http://www.mcdonalds.com/ In my own opinion I feel like in the
case the woman who sustained injuries was well taken care of. However, in Tort Reform it has
changed so much over the years in the case 2.86 Million dollars may seem like a great amount of
money, when you think about recovery fees, doctor fees, lawyer fees, court fees did she really have
2.86 million dollars? I strongly feel that this law has too many loopholes and it doesn't need to be in
place. During my research I didn't see anything reason for it to still be into place. I did not find the
tort

Product Liability In Canada
Introduction Product liability is a concept in law where the manufacturer /seller/supplier of the
product is held answerable for the damage caused to the consumer of the product or .In simple
meaning , if a purchased is the reason for the injury to the to the buyer , the selling party will be
liable for the There are many goods that are not appropriate for consumption but still are sold in the
market and hence cause harm to the user. In such a case the parties which are involved in selling the
good are accountable for the damage to the consumer. (Shugarman D; Beckman R,2005) Theories of
product liability Breach of warranty In product liability cases, a breach of warranty claim will be
supported either an express warranty or ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some of the problems arise from the intrinsic nature of product riskdecisions and also the perform of
tort liability, whereas others couldderive from individuals' cognitive limitations and inability tothink
properly regarding equalisation risk and price. so it mightbe each incorrect and an oversimplification
responsible all theills on the tort liability system. That system functions fairlywell for several forms
of accidents, like personal motorvehicle accidents. However, tort liability falls short with respect to
products. (Viscusi, 2012) The equity arguments specific a belief that cases ought to be selected the
premise of fault and negligence. In explicit, companies take into account it unjust to be assessed
damages once there was nothing they might have done to forestall the injury. The distributive
objection is that the awards in several cases are overlarge and appear to supply a prize, as in an
exceedingly lottery, instead of providing compensation for actual losses. However, liability awards
will force companies into chapter 11 or deter them from manufacturing bound fascinating product
Case studies Donoghue v.

Tort Reform in the Us
The Need for Tort Reform in the United States Tort law is a type of law that is designed to offer
remedies to civil wrongs. Unlike contractual damages that occur, where responsibility is
predetermined, tort law is designed for someone who is legally injured to be able to recover
damages from the person who is deemed legally responsible, or liable for such injuries. Tort law is
broken down into three main categories, negligence, strict liability, and intentional tort. In
negligence tort one is accused of causing damages through their carelessness. After accusation of
negligence the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant had duty of care, and that a breach
of duty had occurred that caused the damages. Strict liability is a ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As aforementioned the severe costs of the American tort system have and are becoming more of a
burden on the economy. The effects do not only affect American families, but also businesses as
they have to pay higher insurance costs. Excessive litigation also hurts the economy by slowing
down productivity and growth due to the lack of risk–taking which consequently slows down the
introduction of new technologies. Trying to tackle this problem is University of Virginia law
professor Jeffrey O'Connell and Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute, who together have
accumulated a number of tort reform ideas that potentially eliminate the absurd incentives of tort
law and result in cast economic savings. The pair had three reform ideas. First is the "auto–choice"
reform which is designed to make $40 million in savings available on auto insurance premiums. The
desired result from this reform would translate in a saving on a typical insurance premium of an
average of $221. The second (co–authored by Professor Lester Brickman of the Cardozo Law
School) is the contingency fee reform. It is designed to appreciably lower attorney fees by $45
billion a year. It would do this by paying the plaintiff's attorney the amount that they add to the
client's settlement. This is a sort of incentive plan that would give greater reason for the attorney to

Product Liability Tort Case : Stella Liebeck And Mcdonalds
Happened in 1994, it was a strict product liability tort case between the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck and
the defendant, McDonald's. This case became a very famous over the country because the U.S. was
discussing over tort reform. "A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to the plaintiff Stella
Liebeck, a 79–year–old woman who suffered third–degree burns when she accidentally spilled hot
coffee in her lap after purchasing it at a McDonald's drive–through" (wikipedia.org). On February
27, 1992, Stella Liebeck who is a 79–year–old woman ordered a cup of coffee at the drive–through
Mcdonald's restaurant in New Mexico. Her grandson, "Chris was driving his car, and Stella was in
passenger's seat. Chris passed a hot coffee cup to Stella and she placed a cup of coffee between her
knees and tried to pull the far side of the lid toward her to remove it" (wikipedia.org). In the
meanwhile, she spilled the entire cup of coffee over her lap. Liebeck was taken to the hospital
immediately, where a doctor treated her with 6% severe burns and 16% of lesser burns of her skin.
For eight days, she was dealt with in the hospital for three weeks she cared for her daughter. After
the incidents, she has trouble with permanent disfigurement and was partially disabled for two years.
She initially requested money as much as $20,000 to McDonald's to pay for her. It included past
medical expenses, the future expectation of expenses, and loss of her daughter income during care.
Whereas, McDonald's offered only $800. She decided to go to trial and hired attorney Reed Morgan.
This case was filed in court. It was accusing McDonald's of gross negligence of "selling coffee that
was unreasonably dangerous and defectively manufactured. It was a tort for a strict liability case.
McDonald's refused attorney's second offer of $90,000. Morgan thirdly offered to settle for
$300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final
pre–trial attempts to settle" (wikipedia.org; quizlet.com). What was the basis of her claim against
McDonald's? I can extract six main claims of Liebeck and her attorney's as the below. It is filed on
October 5, 1993, the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. According to

McDonald's: The coffee spill Essay
1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incidents? Was the lawsuit
"frivolous" as some people thought, or serious business?
The major issues in this case include how hot the coffee should be, when to draw the line on making
a case outrageous and how corporations are supposed to please customers without worrying about
being sued. I believe that the lawsuit was frivolous because of the amount of money that was being
asked for. It is common sense that when you order coffee or any other hot beverage that contents
will be hot. I feel that it was the fault of Liebeck and although this is the case, McDonald's should
have paid the medical bills and settled out of court before it was blown out of proportion.
2. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This statement was supposed to help McDonald's but in turn helped Liebeck.
4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you most likely have
supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the pickle burn case?
If I were a juror in this case or the pickle burn case, I would have most likely supported McDonald's.
I feel that people should show a little more common sense when they order food. Most people want
to get their food while it is still hot so why don't people sue when food is too cold? On the other
hand, McDonald's should make the warning on the cup larger and warn consumers as they order.
5. What are the similarities and differences between the coffee burn case and the pickle burn case?
Does one represent a more serious threat to consumer harm? What should McDonald's, and other
fast food restaurants, do about hot food, such as hamburgers, when consumers are injured?
Both the coffee case and the pickle burn case have one big thing in common. Both cases are against
McDonald's. Both cases are based on the same complaint, too hot, but the burns resulted from
different sources. As I stated above, fast food restaurants should make labels larger as well as give a
verbal warning. Maybe they should make the entire wrapper or cup a warning. I cannot however
agree to lower the temperature. I feel that if a customer wishes to have a cooler beverage, ask the
server to pour a little cool water in it to cool it off. As far as food is

Liebeck V. Mcdonalds Essay
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald's,
resulting from Ms. Liebeck's efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot
coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also
be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision. The facts
in the Liebeck case start with the incident description as recounted by Aric Press in the March 20,
1995 issue of Newsweek. Ms. Liebeck was a recently retired, 79 year old woman who ordered
coffee at a McDonald's drive through and received it in a lidded, styrofoam cup (Press, 1995, p. 32).
After the order was picked up, her grandson ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
McDonald's had as many as 700 reports of coffee that scalded customers, creating injuries (Gerlin,
1994, p.1). The jury decided that the plaintiff was entitled to both compensatory damages of
$200,000, reduced by $40,000 for her own negligence, and punitive damages totaling $2.7 million
(Gerlin, 1994, p.1). Gerlin (1994) goes on to state that "the jury found that McDonald's had engaged
in willful, reckless or malicious conduct" and subsequently used that for the basis of their punitive
damages (p. 2). The number settled on was equivalent roughly to two days worth of coffee sales
companywide (Gerlin, 1994, p.2). The jury concluded that McDonald's behaved callously and
punished them accordingly (Coffin, 2004, p.4). The jury decided the warning on the cup was
insufficient for the hazard (Press, 1995, p.33). 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

Drug Enforcement Administration ( Dea )
Introduction I have chosen to research and write about to the Oro Valley Police Department in Oro
Valley, Arizona and the Federal agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I will
explain the history of each agency, where these agencies have their jurisdiction, the types of crimes
they investigate and describe the similarities and differences between the Oro Valley Police
Department in Oro Valley, Arizona and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
History
The Oro Valley Police Department (OVPD) has kept the peace since 1974. In 1983, Oro Valley was
home to approximately 1,500 residents and the land area was only 4.5 square miles, since then Oro
Valley has grown to approximately 44,000 residents spread out over 36 square miles. The OVPD
has grown from five commission officers to over hundred commission officers. The OVPD is
known for being one of the safest cities in the state of Arizona. From 1974 until now they have
written their mission statement and qualities they want for the town of Oro Valley. Their mission
statement is "We, the members of the Oro Valley Police Department, are dedicated to providing
excellent service through partnerships that build trust, prevent crime and promote a safe
environment to enhance the quality of life." The OVPD has a vision to "Seek Excellence, Remain
Vigilant, Involve Community, Enforcement: SERVICE". Before the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) was established, drug enforcement was handled between two federal

Frivolous or Not? Two Law Suit Case Studies
Introduction
Liebeck vs. McDonald's was a known case in the early 90's because to most it was a frivolous case
and an easy way for one to get rich. The case involved a 79 year old woman who happened to have
spilled hot coffee onto her lap purchased from McDonald's and then suffered severe third degree
burns. The woman was then presented with millions of monies covering the damages she incurred.
In addition to the above case, the Chung vs Pearson, was also known to be a frivolous case which
took place in the year 2005. This case consisted of a DC Administrative judge suing his local
neighborhood dry cleaners for a missing pair of suit pants for a little over 65 million dollars.
McDonald's vs Liebeck
Facts
In the year of 1992, Stella Liebeck was driven to a local McDonald's where she ordered a cup of 49
cent coffee to go. While riding in her grandson's Ford the car did not come furnished with cup
holders so he pulled into an empty parking space once she received the coffee she placed the cup in
between her legs opening the lid to pour cream and sugar and ended up spilling the coffee in her lap
causing her to get 3rd degree burns scolding her buttocks, thighs and her groin area. The facts of the
case are that according the McDonald's manual the temperature of the coffee is supposed to be
served at a temperature of 180–190 degrees but the plaintiff attorney argued the temperature should
not be any hotter than 140 degrees. If the McDonald's franchise decides to lower the

Kyran Murphy Case Summary
Facts: Kyran Murphy decided to book a reservation at the Holliday Inn motel in Danville,
Tennessee. The motel that Murphy decided to visit was franchised by Holiday Inn, to a third party
Betsy–Len, who managed and operated day to day responsibilities. On August 24, 1971, Murphy
slipped and fell due to the accumulation of water produced by a faulty air conditioner unit in the
hotel. Murphy sustained multiple injuries. Plaintiff : Kyran Murphy Kyran Murphy felt that the
Holiday Inn should be held accountable for her injuries because they were sustained in a Holiday
Inn Inc. motel. Murphy felt that the "defendant, its agents, and employees, so carelessly, recklessly,
and negligently maintained the premise of the motel" that caused

Noneconomic Damages Reform Essay
Noneconomic Damages Reform There has been over three decades of debate over a reform that
affects everything from insurance and health care premiums to the prices of goods and services. The
Tort law gives civilians the right to put liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different
things if something goes wrong. A main issue of the tort reform is noneconomic damages.
Noneconomic damages are awards granted for "pain and suffering." A solution to this ongoing
problem is to set a cap, or ceiling, on the amount of compensation one can receive for his or her
"pain and suffering." An issue with setting caps is that they are argued against as "unconstitutional"
and "violates the right to trial by jury" (Hudson) stated in the sixth ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
According to Sherman Joyce, Victor Schwartz, and Darren McKinney of the ATRA, over 30 states
have implemented some sort of noneconomic damages reform. For example, in 1986 the Alaskan
government established a state cap of $500,000 on, "noneconomic damages for cases that do not
involve any physical impairment or disfigurement." In 1997, Alaska adjusted the noneconomic
damages reform once more. In this modification of the reform, the state went into deeper detail
addressing different instances that could occur and the sufficient compensation for an individual's
pain and suffering. For a single death or injury to a greater extent of $400,000, they are awarded as
much as their life expectancy multiplied by $8,000. In another instance involving severe
disfigurement or physical impairment exceeding $1,000,000, it is the individual's life expectancy (in
years) multiplied by $25,000 (2). Many other states including Alabama, California, Missouri, and
other states have established their own type of cap or system for awarding damages for pain and
suffering. In states that have a cap or system of deciding awards, they have lower insurance and
health care premiums and the prices of goods and services stays lower. This benefits the state's
economy as well as the Nation's.
According to most news articles and journals interpreting the progression of the tort reform,
noneconomic damages reforms are the most common throughout the states. As

Bobbi Brown Research Paper
Russell J. Eckerman, a Marrieta motorist, is suing Bobbi Kristina Brown because of a car accident
in January. Bobbi Brown, 22, is the only daughter of Whitney Houston. The personal injury lawsuit
alleges that Bobbi Kristina drove a 2005 Jeep Liberty that smashed his 2007 Ford Taurus at
Holcomb Bridge Road and Martins Landing Drive on January 27, 2015. Nick Gordon, Bobbi
Brown's boyfriend, discovered her face down and unresponsive in a bathtub on January 31, 2015.
She has been in a medically–induced coma ever since. How did the accident happen? According to
legal documents, Eckerman claims Brown sped the day of the accident in unfavorable weather
conditions. She blew a tire of a nail on the road and swerved into oncoming traffic and struck

Hot Coffee, By Susan Saladoff
Homework Assignment I: "Hot Coffee" 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. The tort
reform is often proposed by the Republican Party in which it changes the civil judicial system that
aims to reduce the ability of

Pearson and Mcdonal Lawsuit Analysis Essay
Pearson and McDonald's Lawsuit Analysis Samantha Penico University of Maryland University
College, AMBA 610 Executive Summary There are two major lawsuits which the main populace
has defined as frivolous. One of those cases is the McDonald's split coffee case. This is the case
where the plaintiff spilled her coffee and was rumored to sue McDonald's for 2.7 million dollars and
win. The other's case is the Pearson dry cleaning case where a man sued Chung Dry Cleaner's 54
million dollars for losing his pants. The plaintiff won in the McDonald's Case and the Plaintiff lost
in the Dry clearance's case. In this paper we are going to dissect each case by the facts, the law, the
issues, the ethical issues, the defendants preventative ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the Pant's Suit Pearson has no proof that Customer Cleaners lost his pants, it is all alleged. He
could have forgotten them at his house or lost them himself, there is not any way to prove Custom
Cleaner's even lost his pants. But in the McDonald's case it is easy to see the facts because they are
all in statistics, in photographs, the facts are all in the evidence. One case is already losing it's steam
while another is gaining momentum, lets move on. What are the Issues? An issue is why a case is
even occurring. One issue is burns from an overly hot cup of coffee. The other issue is emotional
distress and financial loss due to a pair of missing pants. There may be isssues though that grow
from these or are the issues really that simple? In the missing pants case, the issue is Judge Pearson's
pants were allegedly misplaced by Custom Cleaners. So how is it a pair of missing pants led to a suit
battle that lasted over two years? There must have been other issues involved. First lets assess the
facts we received, the pair of pants Custom Cleaners gave Mr. Pearson he claimed were not his, but
they were his size and matched the alteration specification requested (Goldwasser, 2007). Other
issues that grew from the case was the loss of business and harassment the Chung's received due to
Mr. Pearson's harassment. Mr. Pearson would regularly go door to door in the neighborhood asking
the

Mcdonalds Mcdonald's Case Study
In February 22, 1992 a man by the name of Chris pulls his 1989 Ford Probe into the drive–thru of an
Albuquerque, New Mexico McDonalds. Chris ordered a coffee for his grandmother, 79–year–old
Stella Liebeck. Upon receiving the coffee Chris pulls into a parking space so Stella can introduce
cream and sugar to her coffee. A 1989 Ford Probe lacks cupholders and features a slanted
dashboard. Thus, Stella placed the coffee near her lap and opened the Styrofoam lid. At that
moment, 180–degree liquid saturated Stella's thighs, perineum, genital area, and inner thigh. The
sweatpants worn by Stella acted as a sponge that held the scorching liquid close to her skin. Stella
sustained third–degree burns over six percent of her body requiring ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, the plaintiff easily established negligence. However, the plaintiff's complaint also sought to
prove fault of product liability and alleged the coffee at its base was inherently "defective"
notwithstanding the defective serving container on top of being defectively marketed attributable to
a lack of warning label.
However, in response, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin, & Robb, P.A., the law firm for the defense
issued an affirmative defense. McDonald's alleged the plaintiff's injuries were the result of either her
own negligence in handling the obviously hot coffee or the negligence of a third party, such as her
grandson's driving. McDonald's suggested that if the plaintiff was injured as suggested it was the
result of an accident or inadvertence which has no bearing on the restaurant chain. Among other
defenses, the defense asserts that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which the court could grant
relief. Additionally, the defense alleged the defendant adhered always to a standard of care and thus
never failed to show reasonable conduct. The defense suggested the plaintiff must present prima
facie showing of entitlement of punitive damages before burdening a jury. After all, McDonald's
asserted, customers "know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way."
The litigation process featured numerous motions on both sides of the courtroom. On January 21,
1994 the defense made a motion for summary judgment. After citing a plethora of

Essay on Tort Reform
Tort Law and Cases:
A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010
|
Introduction
"A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property"; that is brought before a court to
compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage, 2010, pg 251). In order to prove an intentional
tort, the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation
4) Injury or Harm.
The following tort cases, Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonalds, have been a pinnacle "poster
child" for tort reform in the United States. In 2002, frivolous lawsuits cost taxpayers over $233
billion (Insideprison.com, 2006). What is considered a frivolous lawsuit? It is when an attorney ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(Manning–Sossamon.com, 2009)
Originally, Mr. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for the loss of his pants, alleging claims of common
law fraud and that they violated the CPPA by displaying signs that read "Satisfaction Guaranteed",
"All Work Done on Premises" and "Same Day Service". The amount Mr. Pearson was seeking for
relief was $67 million dollars, since that is what it would take for the Chungs to satisfy his claim
(Pearson 2). It was Mr. Pearson's belief, that there is an unconditional warranty that Custom
Cleaners now must provide since they have the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign hanging in there
store. (Pearson 4). In the pretrial discovery, the court confirmed that all work was done on premises,
and the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on the portion of fraud. Mr. Pearson
amended his lawsuit and stated that he is "not suing for lost pants", but only regarding the
"Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign. (Pearson 4). Mr. Pearson insists that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed"
sign is unconditional and limitless (Pearson 7). In addition, the claim tickets that are printed have
limitations on the back which further limit the unlimited guarantee that is provided by the signs
hanging in the store, which is a violation of the FTC regulations regarding "Satisfaction
Guaranteed" (Pearson 20). The court, however, ruled that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" means how
a

Difference Between Civil Law And Criminal Law
What is the difference between criminal and civil law? What is a tort? What are three forms of
product–liability cases that can be formed due to a manufacturer's negligence? And what is a
warranty? These are all important questions that are answered by having a basic knowledge of the
law and regulations. Let's take a look at each term and how our legal court system has defined them.
First, criminal law is a crime and considered a type of wrongdoing. It can be against an individual or
to society as a whole that is perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise an endangerment to a
person's property, health, safety, and/or moral welfare. We define these crimes as assault, battery,
arson, rape, or fraud, just to name a few. Therefore, if a person allegedly has committed a crime, a
public official such as a district attorney, will file a case against a defendant, whom is then required
to appear in court. The defendant then will need to appear before a judge or jury and based on the
evidence presented a finding will be either innocence or guilt. If a defendant in a criminal matter is
found guilty, our society believes that a defendant should serve a punishment for their wrong doings.
Therefore, punishments for the wrong doer are either fines, probation, imprisonment, or in some
cases even death. Second, civil law is an injury to a person or property in which a civil action begins
when a party files a complaint. For example, a civil matter could be a breach of

Tort Reform And The Civil Justice System
Tort reform is an extremely debatable topic in the political & legal fields. By definition, tort reform
refers to, "The proposed changes made in the civil justice system that directly reduces tort litigation
or damages." Generally, when someone mentions tort reform to an everyday normal person who is
not familiar with legalese, they don't have any idea of what the term "tort reform" is. Throughout
this, one will understand through the three interviews conducted that two out of three people don't
necessarily understand the full concept of tort reform or have absolutely no idea what it is. One of
the most notorious cases that led to the ongoing debate of tort reform is Liebeck v. Mcdonald's
Restaurant. When the case is brought up, one will say, "Isn't that the lady that burned herself with
coffee and then tried to sue for millions of dollars?" People believe they know the details of the
case, however one will be able to see, this particular case is often misconstrued. In my personal
opinion, after learning and studying the facts of this case, I don't understand how a human being
could be for tort reform after actually learning about the trials and tribulations that certain people in
these kinds of cases, especially Stella Liebeck, have to go through. First, the initial opinion of two
out of three people when asked what is their opinion of the case is similar. The first interviewee,
Tyler, believed Stella Liebeck just burnt her legs a little bit and that it was either the

Liebeck Vs Mcdonald's Restaurants Case Brief
The documentary focuses on two famous cases "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants" and "Jamie
Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co." and it talks about the Tort reform. The case about "Liebeck v.
McDonald's restaurants", Stella Liebeck sued McDonald in the civil court because she was severely
burn by McDonald's coffee because the coffee was to hot. At that time the incident happen Liebeck
was 79 year old and she worked fully time still on morning, when her grandson was driving her to
work and they decided to stop at local McDonald in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She ordered a cup
of coffee with sugar and cream and when she was in the parking lot of McDonald, she put the coffee
in between her legs so she can balance the coffee and be able to add her sugar and cream in her
coffee. Her hand slip and hit the cup of coffee and the coffee slip on her thighs and she suffered
severe third– degree burns. McDonald lost the case because the jury discovered more than 700 cases
that involve burning victims from McDonald's coffee. After she won the case she became the post
child for "frivolous" lawsuits. Television Shows like "Seinfeld" mocked her for the suing of ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Supporters for Tort reform ran a falser campaign against Diaz because they did not him to be a
Judge for Mississippi Supreme Court. The supporters of Tort reform used libel and slander to falser
accuse Diaz for taking money from private company. He defended himself by showing the court that
defendant acts with malice with knowledge that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the
truth or falsity of the statement. Diaz spend almost 3 years in court try to fight against the accusation
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce bought to him. It was a plan that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce want to keep Diaz out the office. He won the first election but he lost the second election
because he did not have enough money to run against the U.S. Chamber of

Disagree With The Common Law No-Duty Rule

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Felicia Barker

More from Felicia Barker (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Disagree With The Common Law No-Duty Rule