Negligence and Profit Maximization: McDonalds Hot Coffee Scandal Exposed

Abstract

[Name] Response to Liebeck V. McDonalds I can confirm that you went through the video and understood great facts that defined McDonald's as ignorant of their customers’ well-being but rather so concerned with profit maximization. Based on your text, it is clear that McDonalds knew that their beverages/drinks were heating beyond reasonable measures/degrees but did nothing to fix the situation. On the contrary, they ignored the 700 complaints recorded by their customers before Liebeck's case on problems associated with serving very hot drinks. Upon Liebeck's case, McDonald failed in expressing care to the legally injured customer, which proved the guilt of negligence that our text best explains. I commend you for that. However, I would like to add something that also defines McDonald's negligence in their service delivery. As explained by Liebecks representatives, they requested McDonald's to fix their equipment to lower their heating degrees and avoid Liebeck-like cases in the future, but their plea fell on deaf ears ([Author] 12:00-51). Secondly, McDonald's quality assurance executive, though with vast knowledge on the dangers associated with recording so many negative cases regarding a company’s services/qualities, comfortably confirmed that their drinks were too hot in that no one would survive, giving them an abrupt sip upon serving. Such facts express the degree of negligence that such a big company expressed, leading the juror to rule the case in favor of Liebeck ([Author] 13.45).