McDonalds Hot Coffee Lawsuit: Negligence Exposed

Abstract

[Name] Response to Alan Tran Your post has clear facts that define McDonalds as the guilt of the tort of negligence beyond reasonable doubts. First, it is clear that though McDonald’s executives knew serving unreasonably hot degree beverages and drinks proved a threat to their target customers, they took no initiative to fix their equipment to produce reasonable consumable drinks. When the Liebeck case emerged, McDonald's, though with clear history on the dangers associated with their abnormal hot drinks as attributed to the 700 cases associated with their hot drinks in their record before this case, took it lightly and ignored their responsibility as demanded by the tort of negligence. McDonald, as the defendant, denied Liebeck the plaintiff the central concept of care that remains defined as a central concept of the tort of negligence (Chapter 5-4a). The clear pictures portraying severe burns and a helpless Liebeck lying in a hospital bed served as a clear indication of the dangers associated with McDonald’s products. As narrated by Liebecks representatives, McDonalds failed to express even the slightest care even after seeing the plaintiff's condition and requests by her representative to cater for her rising hospital bills ([Author] 5:58-6:05 and 12:00-51). I agree that Liebeck proved beyond reasonable doubt of McDonald’s negligence which led her to a compensatory and punitive damage payment which in one way or the other relieved her agony and taught McDonald a big lesson.