Debate

The McDonalds Scalding cocoa Case is a slip for compensatory and retri aloneory indemnity filed by a 79-year- overage woman, Stella Liebeck, who suffered from leash degree burns as a result of spilled McDonalds cocoa on her body. The jury awarded Liebeck with $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. These amounts were afterwards reduced, but the general conclusion is that McDonalds was gravely punished for serving precise vitriolic cocoa that led to heavy injury.McDonalds chocolate is scalding because it is maintained at clxxx to xcl degrees Fahrenheit to maintain best taste. The temperature of McDonalds is glaringly high compargond to the typical temperature of drinking chocolate when prepared at home, which is alone slightly 135 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. condescension this fact, the subject is worth revisiting because there are legitimate arguments worth pursuing, which could lessen or gondola carry off entirely the liability of McDonalds.It should be remembered that coffee berry should naturally be served hot, unless the node asked for new(prenominal) types of coffee, which should be served cold. Therefore, while companies such as McDonalds have certain responsibilities to their consumers, the last mentioned also have debt instrument to their hold selves, particularly in ensuring that they would purpose effort in their handling or expending of purchased food. In the case draw above, it is faint that Liebeck did not exercise collectable attention in her handling of the coffee.With expert intimacy that the coffee was hot, she placed the Styrofoam form containing the coffee betwixt her knees. She should have exercised more(prenominal)(prenominal) heed considering that she was sitting in a car and she placed the cup between her knees, twain circumstances contributing to the wishing of constancy to the cup. Moreover, Liebeck did not consider that she was already old and her body is n o daylong in top shape. She should have exercised more wish in her actions to prevent any(prenominal) bod of injury.ReferencesAmerican Association for Justice. McDonalds Scalding deep brown Case. Retrieved February 5, 2008 Lectric right Library. The Actual Facts About The McDonalds deep brown Case. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http//www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm viewThe McDonalds Scalding Coffee Case is a case for compensatory and punitive damages filed by a 79-year-old woman, Stella Liebeck, who suffered from third degree burns as a result of spilled McDonalds coffee on her body. The jury awarded Liebeck with $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. These amounts were later reduced, but the general conclusion is that McDonalds was severely punished for serving very hot coffee that led to serious injury.McDonalds coffee is scalding because it is maintained at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. The temperature of McDona lds is glaringly high compared to the normal temperature of coffee when prepared at home, which is only about 135 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Despite this fact, the case is worth revisiting because there are certain arguments worth pursuing, which could lessen or remove entirely the liability of McDonalds.It should be remembered that coffee should naturally be served hot, unless the customer asked for other types of coffee, which should be served cold. Therefore, while companies such as McDonalds have certain responsibilities to their consumers, the latter also have responsibility to their own selves, particularly in ensuring that they would exercise diligence in their handling or consumption of purchased food. In the case described above, it is clear that Liebeck did not exercise due diligence in her handling of the coffee.With full knowledge that the coffee was hot, she placed the Styrofoam cup containing the coffee between her knees. She should have exercised more prudence conside ring that she was sitting in a car and she placed the cup between her knees, both circumstances contributing to the lack of stability to the cup. Moreover, Liebeck did not consider that she was already old and her body is no longer in top shape. She should have exercised more care in her actions to prevent any kind of injury.ReferencesAmerican Association for Justice. McDonalds Scalding Coffee Case. Retrieved February 5, 2008 Lectric Law Library. The Actual Facts About The McDonalds Coffee Case. Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http//www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm