https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOELinks to an external site.
Minimize embedded content
Hot Coffee, Anyone?
Imagine that you own a business that sells beverages and food, including coffee. One day one of your employees sells coffee to an elderly woman who subsequently spills the coffee in her lap and brings a lawsuit against your business.
This actually happened to McDonalds in 1994.
Watch the video above and follow these links to read articles with alternate views of the “truth” about this case:
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=facts Links to an external site.
The plaintiff in this case alleged that the McDonald’s coffee was unreasonably dangerous and McDonald’s was strictly liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also alleged that the coffee was “manufactured defectively due to excessive heat;” further she alleged that, the container itself had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, rendering the product defectively marketed.”
Based on these limited facts and the facts provided in the video and the article and based on the law as outlined below, answer the following four questions.
- Do you feel that the plaintiff in this case would have been able to meet all of the requirements necessary for a strict product liability suit against McDonald’s? See pages 139 – 140 for more information. Answer this question by applying the facts of the McDonald’s case to the law as outlined below.
The basis for an action in strict liability can be summarized: as a set of six requirements:
- The product must be in a defective condition when the defendant sells it.
- The defendant must normally be engaged in the business of selling (or otherwise distributing) that product.
- The product must be “unreasonably dangerous” to the user or consumer because of its defective conditionThe plaintiff must incur physical harm to self or property by use or consumption of the product.
- The defective condition must be the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
- The goods must not have been substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.
Please ensure that you provide facts from the case to support or deny each of the requirements above.
2.Was the McDonald’s Coffee Unreasonably Dangerous? See page 140 of your textbook for more information. Apply the facts of the case to the law as outlined below:
Courts generally consider a product so defective as to be an “unreasonably dangerous” in either of the following situations:
- The product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer; or
- A less dangerous alternative was economically feasible for the manufacturer, but the manufacturer failed to produce it.
- A product may be “unreasonably dangerous” due to the manufacturing process, the design, or the warning.
- Was the McDonald’s Coffee Unreasonably Dangerous due to the Manufacturing Process? See pg 140 of your textbook for more information. Apply the facts of the case to the law as outlined below:
A manufacturing defect is a departure from a product unit’s design specifications that results in products that are physically flawed, damaged, or incorrectly assembled.
- Was the McDonald’s Coffee Unreasonably Dangerous due to Design Defects? See pages 140-141 of your textbook for more information. Apply the facts of the case to the law as outlined below:
To successfully assert a design defect, a plaintiff has to show that:
- A reasonable alternative design was available.
- As a result of the defendant’s failure to adopt the alternative design, the product was not reasonably safe.
- Was the McDonald’s Coffee Unreasonably Dangerous due to Inadequate Warnings? See pgs 141-143 of your textbook for more information. Apply the facts of the case to the law as outlined below:
A product will be considered defective due to inadequate warnings:
- When the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or other distributor; and
- The omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.
- Were any of the defenses to product liability outlined on pages 144-147 of your textbook applicable in this case? If so, why? If not, why not? Please provide a thorough analysis of the law as applied to the facts in this case.
5.What types of damages were awarded in the McDonald’s case? Given the facts of the case, do you feel that the damage award was reasonable? Why or why not?
- This case is also a difficult case from an ethical perspective. Should ethical business owners take active steps to discourage strict product liability suits, or should ethical business owners support these types of lawsuits in order maintain a successful and ethical business environment?
Police unfortunate behavior incorporates a thorough range, mirroring the elevated requirements we expect of cops. Police unfortunate behavior can apply to on furlough conduct and additionally direct at work. Any lead that is despicable, inappropriate or unbecoming a cop, or shows unfitness to be or proceed as a cop, or does not meet the necessities the network sensibly expects of a cop. Models of at work police unfortunate behavior would be: Inability to give medicinal treatment to a prisoner. Striking another person in a club would be a case of on furlough police offense. The infringement of state and government laws or the infringement of people's sacred rights by cops; additionally when police perpetrate violations for individual gain. Police unfortunate behavior terms allude to an extensive variety of procedural, criminal, and common infringement. Offense is the broadest classification. Unfortunate behavior is "procedural" when it alludes to police who conflict with police division guidelines and controls; "criminal" when it alludes to police who challenge state and government laws; "illegal" when it alludes to police who misuse a resident's Civil Rights; or any mix thereof. Normal types of wrongdoing are: Exorbitant utilization of physical or destructive power, Prejudicial capture, Physical or verbal badgering Specific authorization of the law. Benefit or another sort of material advantage picked up unlawfully because of the officer's position is viewed as unfortunate behavior. Types of police offense incorporate pay off, blackmail, getting or fencing stolen products, and offering drugs. The term likewise alludes to examples of wrongdoing inside a given police office or unique unit, especially where offenses are rehashed with the assent of bosses. Police divisions set up implicit rules, prepare newcomers, and research and order officers, now and then in collaboration with regular citizen grumbling audit sheets which are proposed to give free evaluative and medicinal counsel. Insurances are additionally found in state law, which grants exploited people to sue police for harms in common activities. Unreasonable power police fierceness, false capture and detainment, vindictive indictment, and unfair demise are precedents of activities brought for cases. State activities might be carried in the meantime with extra cases for protected infringement. Government law particularly targets police unfortunate behavior through both criminal and common rules, Federal law is pertinent to all state, province, and neighborhood officers, incorporating the individuals who work in restorative offices. The key government criminal resolution makes it unlawful for anybody acting with police specialist to deny someone else of any privilege ensured by the Constitution or laws of the United States (Section 18 U.S.C. Â§ 241 ). Another rule, normally alluded to as the police wrongdoing arrangement, makes it unlawful for state or nearby police to take part in an example or routine with regards to lead that denies people of their rights (42 U.S.C.A. 14141 ). Government law disallows separation in police work. police divisions getting government financing is secured by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Â§ 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs rule (42 U.S.C. Â§ 3789d[c]), which disallow separation based on race, shading, national starting point, sex, and religion. These laws preclude lead from racial slurs and unjustified captures to the refusal of offices to react to segregation protestations. During the 1990s, the New York City Police Department started a "network policing" way to deal with wrongdoing battling. Some significant urban areas in which network policing and other network relations methodologies have been utilized report expanded open trust in police, a decrease in wrongdoing, and the facilitating of racial strains. The objective of network policing is for network occupants and police to cooperate tending to wrongdoing in the area. Successful police-network relations start's locale individuals find out about policing and how to anticipate wrongdoing, and a police division can find out about neighborhood individuals and their policing needs. Network policing permits neighborhood inhabitants and police divisions to meet up to battle wrongdoing. Network policing exertion can demolish the relations between the police and the network that it is intended to ensure. As the NYPD has perceived, if the cost is the trust and regard of the network we serve whatever additions we have accomplished in battling wrongdoing is limited. On the off chance that individuals from the network are hesitant to approach police because of a paranoid fear of a negative experience, at that point we have not met our commitments to general society regardless of whether wrongdoing levels decay. Abner Louima was struck and sodomized by officers inside Brooklyn's 70th Police Precinct; Mayor Giuliani made the Task Force on Police/Community Relations on August 19, 1997, 10 days after Haitian worker was attacked. The objective was to give better correspondence among individuals from the police division and inhabitants of the City of New York. The New York City Police Department started to set up a program in June 1996, called the Courtesy, Professionalism and Respect (CPR) program. The CPR program supports polished methodology inside the office, including the steady showcase of obligingness and regard toward the nationals of New York City. The NYPD started the program in light of an ascent in the quantity of dissensions against the NYPD. The chairman accepts there is an issue in the connection between the New York Police Department and the networks of shading in New York, which must be tended to from the two sides of the issue. Huge numbers of the grievances concerned rude direct by individuals from the NYPD. To enhance the circumstance it is important that officers comprehend the requirement for conscious treatment of the general population of New York. We prepare them to allude to individuals as Mr. also, Ms, to endeavor to disclose to individuals for what reason they're doing what they do and to make a special effort to be conscious. As indicated by the NYPD, a definitive objectives of the CPR program include: A more beneficial connection between the NYPD and inhabitants Enhanced officer security through expanded open help More accomplishment for all wrongdoing systems A picture of individuals from the NYPD as law implementation experts. To achieve these objectives, the NYPD gives its officers in-benefit preparing and additionally preparing at the Police Academy. The twentieth century saw various legitimate, regulatory, and insightful ways to deal with the issue. The section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, gave new securities to natives who had since a long time ago endured prejudicial policing. A string of milestone Supreme Court choices exceedingly affected cases bringing about the reinforcing of Fourth Amendment rights against absurd Search and Seizure, evidentiary tenets restricting the utilization at preliminary of proof polluted by unlawful police activities, and the foundation of the supposed Miranda Warning expecting officers to inform kept suspects regarding their sacred rights. Conventional perspectives depended on the supposition that police misuse mirrored the ethical failings of individual officers-the purported "terrible cop." The Knapp Commission was sorted out to hold hearings on the degree of defilement in the city's police division. Declaration against individual officers uncovered fundamental debasement as well as featured an impediment to examine these maltreatment: the comprehension among cops referred to differently as "the Code of Silence" and "the Blue Curtain" under which officers respect declaration against an individual officer as selling out. Crafted by criminologists and others, police offices tried to enhance hierarchical guidelines, preparing, and anticipation and control systems. The distribution of a code of police lead by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, reflect all the more hard preparing for officers, and explored different avenues regarding alleged network policing projects to enhance connections among officers and the network. A few urban areas set up joint police and non military personnel protest survey sheets to give residents a bigger job in what generally had been a shut, inner process by police divisions. Among the most emotional models of framework wide change is New York City's reaction to long-standing mercilessness, separation, and defilement inside the New York City Police Department. Subsequent to looking into non military personnel grumblings against police during the 1960s, the city focused on it after open clamor over the recording of officers beating natives who abused check in time in 1988. The Civilian Complaint Review Board, which turned into an all-non military personnel organization in 1993. In 1992, reacting to new dissensions, the Mayor selected the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of the Police Department, known as the Mollen Commission. After two years, the commission presumed that the city had shifted back and forth between cycles of defilement and change. The full-time Commission to Combat Police Corruption (CCPC) as a substance autonomous from the police division was made. The CCPC screens the NYPD hostile to defilement arrangements and strategies, conducts reviews, and issues open reports. Unfortunate behavior dissensions can be measured on a city-by-city premise, however these information are frequently abstract, and significantly more protests are recorded than at any other time are assessed at preliminary. Defilement is considerably harder to quantify. As the National Institute of Justice recognized in its May 2000 report, The Measurement of Police Integrity, most debasement occurrences go unreported, and information that do exist "are best viewed as proportions of a police office's anticorruption action, not the real level of defilement." Indictment of the officers was less convincing. Officer Justin Volpe confessed to driving the Sodomy strike and was condemned to 30 years in jail. In any case, in>GET ANSWER