the Liebeck case

The burning accidents, which McDonald’s hot items are to blame for, and the company’s lack of concern for its customers in favor of its concern for statistics, are the main problems in the Liebeck case and the subsequent instances. Liebeck’s error resulted from a lack of prudence, but McDonald’s is mostly to blame for failing to take preventative measures in the face of several hot coffee-related complaints that were made even before to the Liebeck incident. By dismissing the complaints, MacDonald’s demonstrates that it is just concerned with sales figures and has no regard for the security and comfort of its customers. The lawsuit was not frivolous because it was a serious issue attributable to three issues.

Firstly, the coffee temperatures were high about 1700 degrees which is much greater compared to other regular coffee stores and its due to these high temperatures that causes third-grade burns, especially to Liebeck. Secondly, there are wrong designs on the coffee cups, and it is due to this mess that created coffee spilled on Liebeck because of difficulties with opening it. Finally, this lawsuit is important because it warns McDonald’s and has forced it to mind more about its consumer’s safety.

Q2

Social responsibilities of McDonald’s towards its customers is to condone publicly and promise its users about this incident that they are fully met the main being decreasing the temperature of the hot products hence safe for consumption by customers. Economic responsibility, McDonald’s should not only care more about its statistics but also follow right procedures of handling their products to maintain its customers (Hsieh, 2017). Legal and ethical responsibilities, McDonald’s should have allowed for a settlement during the mediation trials, should feel sorry for its mistakes, and admit that the fault was both on them and on consumers as well (Eckenwiler, 2016). Additionally, it should have cared for the medical bills not only for Liebeck but also for also other consumers.

Q3

Arguments that supports McDonald’s position in the Liebeck case is that Liebeck is the main proximate case in the incident also the coffee temperature is at the point where most customers like it at, and finally, most accidents occur most in restaurants than on the streets. Arguments that support Liebeck, the coffee has no warning signs also the temperatures is too high, and finally, McDonald’s turns a blind high in addressing her complaints about compensation.

Q4

If I were the juror in the Liebeck case, I would advocate for compensations on damages of $ 100,000 because Liebeck spilling the coffee was a fault furthermore accidents do happen.

If I were the juror in the pickle burn face, I would take McDonald side. Because one is a grown person and has the sense that hot foods do burn and may cause fatal injuries to oneself so they should take care of themselves to avoid small injuries, the act of recklessness makes most companies think most people are after compensations (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014).

Q5

Both the coffee burn case and the pickle burn case are injury related cases because it’s caused by the negligence of the producers and consumers. The fault lies on both sides because it was caused due to defective products and careless users.

Q6

I firmly believe that the “Stella Awards” is a way of mocking the less fortunate persons. Liebeck case is more serious than the other awards.

Q7

This case in future will be taken care of out of courts. The decisions made by McDonald’s are all about wisdom hence makes the decisions secretive. This process will keep people from seeking a lawsuit. I strongly suggest that people should be more reasonable to go around putting blames on companies because of their mistakes.

Reference

Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2014). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management. Nelson Education.

Eckenwiler, L. A. (2016). Defining Ethical Placemaking for Place-Based Interventions. American Journal Of Public Health, 106(11), 1944-1946.

Hsieh, N. (2017). The Responsibilities and Role of Business in Relation to Society: Back to Basics?. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 293-314. doi:10.1017/beq.2017.8