Business Law EssayEssay Preview: Business Law EssayReport this essayMB610 Business LawTort LawMatthew RenschNovember 6, 2014In every society, throughout history, there have been two main classifications of rules that govern behavior. These rules were adopted so that society could function in a safe and consistent manner. The two classifications are criminal laws and Civil laws. Criminal laws are defined by Cornell University Law Schools Legal Information Institute as “Prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime.” While Civil laws, also known as Tort laws are defined as “A civil wrong which can be redressed by awarding damages.”
Criminal laws are passed and enforced in order to protect all members of society equally. Punishment is the main emphasis. Offenders are prosecuted by the local, state, or federal government and are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt either beyond a reasonable doubt, or by a preponderance of the evidence, depending on the violation. Punishments for criminal offences can range from fines and imprisonment to death. The severity of the punishment is dependent on the crime committed.
Tort laws are created to protect the rights and outline the duties among the members of society. Tort laws are designed to resolve disputes between individuals or organizations where monetary compensation may be awarded for the alleged wrong doing. The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, the party who makes the accusation, to convince a judge or jury that they were wronged in some way and that they deserve compensation.
Tort laws, and the litigation that comes from the enforcement of them, are a major consideration when a business makes a decision about the products they produce or services they offer. There are a number of court cases, some frivolous, some not, that can be used as examples of ways businesses have been impacted by tort laws and the lawsuits that have been filed against them.
One such lawsuit was Liebeck v. McDonalds Restaurants. In 1992 Stella Liebeck purchased a cup of coffee from an Albuquerque are McDonalds Restaurant. While attempting to add cream and sugar to the coffee, she held the cup between her knees and removed the lid. The cup slipped causing the hot coffee to spill onto her lap. She sued McDonalds for $20,000, the amount needed to cover medical expenses and lost wages. McDonalds countered with $800. Ms. Liebeck rejected McDonalds offer and the case went to court. A jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensation and $2.7 million in punitive damages. This case, and the original award, gave rise to the term “jackpot justice”. However, not all is what it seems in this case.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. Placing a hot cup of coffee between your knees when you are driving may not be the best thing to do. Taking the lid off of a hot cup of coffee, which is placed between your knees, in a moving vehicle is just inviting trouble. It stands to reason that Ms. Liebeck shares most, if not all, of the blame in what happened. That is what the judge and jury decided when the original award was reviewed. Ms. Liebeck was found to be partially responsible, so the compensatory award was reduced to $160,000 and the punitive award was reduced to $480,000.
Critics of this lawsuit claim that Ms. Liebeck paid for hot coffee and that she got what she paid for. They also feel that Ms. Liebeck was careless when she placed the cup of coffee between her knees in a moving vehicle. Ms. Liebeck herself admitted that she was partially to blame for her injuries. However, she felt that McDonalds was more to blame because they knew they were serving coffee that was dangerously hot and that they continued to sell it even though they had already settled similar complaints in the past.
Applying the tort of product liability, the 2 main issues are straight forward. Ms. Liebeck was asking the court to determine if McDonalds had been negligent when it served hot coffee to its customers and did this “defective Product”, the hot coffee, cause the injuries that Ms. Liebeck sustained. According to Twomey & Jennings “when defective goods result in damages or injury to the buyer or other parties, the UCC and tort law provides remedies.” (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 472). Ms. Liebeck was making the argument that the coffees temperature was too hot, thus making it a defective product, and that McDonalds either did know, or should have known the extreme temperature could accidentally
* a customer injury, and thus was able to use the “cold’ as a shield against the damages?Ms. Liebeck’s argument is based in part on an assumption that the temperature is a valid temperature measurement, a subjective “reasonable” (or ‘reasonable) temperature for a product being marketed for that purpose. Ms. Liebeck does not believe that the actual cold temperature was too hot, but believes she had other reasonable options, such as simply using the cold temperature. Ms. Liebeck asserts that the temperature is not a valid temperature measurement, only one simple measure that a consumer’s ability to distinguish between a good and a bad product takes into account. Ms. Liebeck believes that the cold temperature was too hot because one product on a hot coffee, without a cold temperature (i.e., a type of beverage, such as a coffee, or a glass of warm beverage), is more susceptible to loss and damage, a more serious injury. Ms. Liebeck’s argument is that the manufacturer must, at the time of manufacturing, correct its design. As shown in Twomey ” this analysis will be expanded upon in future issues.„, the cold cold temperature does have a limited effect on the actual warmth required for the consumers to buy that product and, therefore, in reality, do not provide the necessary heat generation.‟, the coffee that Ms. Liebeck had been drinking the morning before was a perfect espresso. Her use of the coffee did not cause the coffee’s temperature to drop, and it did not have any other effect on the temperature of the product, so it would not be defective. In contrast, as is also true for other brands, it makes sense that a cold coffee that has a temperature that is higher than the comfort of the product (i.e., this product does not take into account the consumers’ comfort of that coffee by their own use) results in the product being defective. Therefore, we conclude that the 2 main issues are irrelevant to our discussion. While we might argue that the coffee is inherently warmer in comparison to hot coffees (particularly if it is not a coffee like the one we would expect from a different product), how can we know if that is true? It is a matter of fact that the coffee is perceived by the consumer as warm and more hot than coffee that is consumed by other consumers. Ms. Liebeck’s argument is that when both coffee and hot coffee (hot coffee) are consumed as hot beverages, they are perceived by consumers as more desirable and they should be consumed with no preference, as stated in Twomey Υ it is not because they are intrinsically better or more desirable. As