Q1
Several issues emerge from the Liebeck case
and subsequent incidents. For one, the case raises the issue as to the extent
of a manufacturer’s responsibility in ensuring that users of their products are
not harmed. This comes in light of the fact that McDonalds admitted that their
coffee was hot and could scald. One would expect that a warning to this effect
suffices to exonerate the chain of any liability. Besides, industry experts
have admitted that the temperature of McDonald’s coffee do not deviate from
industry standards. Ordinary rules of negligence would presuppose that
reasonable consumers do not seek damages for injuries that they would have
otherwise avoided if only they exercised reasonable care. Stella Liebeck can be
said to have caused her own burns when she decided to place the hot coffee
between her knees.
The other issue relates to the role of
lawyers in encouraging a litigious culture in society. Liebeck had initially
wanted only to cater for her out of pocket expenses which she estimated to be
around $2,000. This was, however, before Reed Morgan was hired as an attorney
and who demanded no less than $100,000 in compensatory damages. Lawyers could
be raising the expectations of consumers to unreasonable levels.
In view of the foregoing, it would only be
appropriate to term the case as frivolous. Even the jury had initially thought
so before they saw graphic evidence depicting Stella’s burns. Nevertheless, a
case of negligence should only be allowed to succeed if the litigant proves all
the important elements including proximity.
Q2
McDonald’s does not owe any economic
responsibility towards consumers in the Liebeck case. Whatever economic
responsibility it has is towards the shareholders who are interested in the
maximization of profits. It however, has a social as well as an ethical
responsibility to ensure that complaints regarding burns to consumers are taken
into account. It would have been appropriate if McDonalds responded to the 700
complaints already lodged by consumers even if by way of introducing different
temperatures for their coffee to suit a variety of customers. After all, it
would not be true to just generalize that all their customers want their coffee
scalding hot. The legal responsibilities are the easiest to discharge as they
would only require that McDonald’s meet the minimum legal threshold for preparing
their products.
On their part, consumers have a
responsibility to exercise reasonable care to avoid accidents whenever they buy
hot coffee or hamburgers. It is not contested that that the coffee bought by
Liebeck was hot at 170 degrees but so was coffee bought by any other McDonald’s
customers. The only difference is that many other customers take precaution
unlike Liebeck and a few others who would rely on the lack of a flat surface on
her car to place hot coffee between her knees. It only demonstrates a failure
to exercise reasonable care on her part.
Going by the decision in Liebeck case,
companies are torn between providing consumers with what they want while at the
same time having to devise ways of protecting those customers at the same time.
They can only discharge this difficult goal by conspicuously warning the
customers of the potential dangers of what is on offer. Customers would then be
in a position to exercise due care.
Q3
Four main arguments were advanced in support
of McDonald’s position in the case. First, it was argued that the case against
the company was frivolous. Most people only saw the case as a mere coffee spill
and as such did not warrant dragging the company to court. Proponents of the
alternative view, however, saw the characterization of the case as frivolous as
a scheme by insurance companies to avoid paying out compensations. Another
argument was also advanced to the effect that Liebeck was herself responsible
for the coffee spillage such that McDonald’s should not be held liable as there
was nothing wrong with the coffee temperature.
Furthermore, McDonald’s also contended that their customers wanted the
coffee as hot as it was. They were in a way contending that the society must
put a limit to restricting those things enjoyed by the majority.
As for Liebeck’s position, the argument was
made that McDonalds had failed to change its practices even after several
complaints of burns were reported by customers over a long period of time. The
actual number of complaints was 700 in a span of 10 years. In essence, the
company was being accused of failing to take care of its customers. An argument
was also made by the jury at trial that the evidence indicated how fast
McDonald’s coffee could scald. It is this evidence that actually made the jury
to stop seeing the case as frivolous. Lastly, the jury also made the argument
that Liebeck’s case should be used as a warning to McDonalds so that it should
change its policies.
Q4
Were I a juror in the case, I would most
likely support the position taken by McDonalds. For one, the economic function
of law should strive towards achieving efficiency. Costs should always be
shifted to parties most likely to bear them at the least possible cost. Makers
of hot coffee and hamburgers like McDonalds can only ensure that their
customers are safe from burns at very high costs to the society. At the
extreme, such a cost may even involve ceasing to provide such products
altogether. On the contrary, the society only incurs a small cost if customers
like Liebeck ensure that they are careful whenever they buy hot products.
0 comments:
Post a Comment