Analyzing Tort Law in Liebeck v. McDonald’s- A Jury Deliberation

Analyzing Tort Law in Liebeck v. McDonald’s- A Jury Deliberation

If I were a member of the jury, I would have decided in favor of Mrs. Liebeck. Various factors would motivate such a ruling. First, McDonald’s displayed negligence through continued service of coffee that was hot enough to cause third-degree burns. McDonald’s has received more than 100 complaints regarding burns caused by the coffee served at the restaurant’s outlets (CAOC, 2021). The company had made out-of-court settlements in most of these cases. However, they did not revise the policy regarding the temperature of the coffee. This lack of consideration for clients showed that McDonald’s was negligent in its business activities. Our assignment writing services will allow you to attend to more important tasks as our experts handle your task.

Second, the company was living up to its notion that the public has control over a majority of the aspects (Forell, 2011). This misplaced notion is intended to further the company’s marketing. However, McDonald’s failed to secure the safety of clients when handling their products. The company’s negligence is outright because the main preventive measure was to serve coffee at a lower temperature.

Negligent torts are civil wrongs that occur due to a company’s failure to act responsibly in ways that affect clients positively (Cornell Law School, n.d). Companies such as McDonald’s have ample time and numerous chances to correct these tortious wrongs. However, it seems the company looks down on clients who raise concerns about the quality of products served at their facilities. The lack of action confirms the lack of concern for its clients. The establishment failed to go the extra mile to protect its clients’ well-being. Mrs. Liebeck also offered friendly terms of compensation (CAOC, 2021). The plaintiff sued McDonald at a time when circumstantial evidence showing negligence was sufficient. This evidence is sufficient to rule against McDonald’s and ensure that business is conducted in the future while considering the clients’ welfare.

References

CAOC. (2021). The McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case. Retrieved from Consumer Attorneys of California: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

Cornell Law School. (n.d). Tort. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort

Forell, C. (2011). McTorts: The Social and Legal Impact of McDonald’s Role in Tort Suits. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 24(2). Retrieved from https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Review the resources regarding the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case. Think about what you learned about torts in this unit. If you were a member of the jury, would you have decided for Liebeck or for McDonald’s?

Analyzing Tort Law in Liebeck v. McDonald’s- A Jury Deliberation

Be sure to support your position with citations to authority and the elements of negligence.