Case 23, McDonald's: The Coffee Spill Heard 'Round the World"

1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incident's? Was the
lawsuit "frivolous" as some people thought, or serious business?

Ans. The major issue in Liebeck case and in the following incident’s is the severe burns of
the second and third degree and the McDonald customers suffered from these burns for
months and spent large sums in hospital and home care. The safety issue of the McDonald
products is the major concern in the cases as the Codfee cups has no warning of the high
temperature. The warning labels absence make customers’ precautionary measures low in
handling hot coffee cups. The case is not "frivolous" as some people thought as the incidents
lead to severe physical and emotional traumas to the affected customers. The complacent
attitude of the company and transfer the liability of product handling solely to the product
without any precautionary warning even from the staff did all these major incidents.
However, the handling mistake of Lieback was also responsible in this case but the main
responsibility is of the McDonald to make sure the safe delivery of the products.

2. What are McDonald's social (economic, legal, and ethical) responsibilities toward
consumers in the Liebeck case and the other cases? What are consumers' responsibilities
when they buy a product such as hot coffee or hot hamburgers? How does a company
give consumers what they want and yet protect them at the same time?

Ans: The main responsibility of McDonald is to provide safe and secure high quality
products to customers with a goal of making economic returns but with ethical business
practices. The safety warming, labels like ‘ handle with care: hot coffee inside’ can serve the
purpose to inform customers about the safety precautions.

On the other hand, consumers are also responsible to take their responsibility of handling
products with required care. The mishandling of products can lead to severe accidents. Every
products has a certain degree of risk, therefore, consumers should use the common sense for
using these products. In case of hot coffee or hot hamburgers, the storage place or holding
place should be adjusted in such a manner so that hot human being can get affected in case of
spilled coffee or exposed hamburger.
 Similarly, company can provide consumes what they want and at the same time protect
tehem by issue written or vern=ba warnings and take sdaferty measures in delivering the
product.

3. What are the arguments supporting McDonald's position in the Liebeck case? What are
the arguments supporting Liebeck's position?

The arguments supporting McDonalds case is that the customer demand hot coffee and is
a user of hot coffee should know how much can a the spilled coffee cup creates.
Therefore, customer should place the coffee cup safely in the car and then tried to open
the lid. On the other aside the company responsibility is to deliver the product to
customer, after taking charge of the product, responsibility of the consumer to safely
consume the products.

In contrast, the arguments in favor of Liebeck are the absence of any written or oral
warning of hot coffee handling precaution from the company. The absence of this
warning makes consumer carefree of taking precautionary measures as she though t that
the cup is safe to handle.

4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you most likely have
supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the pickle burn case?

As a juror in both cases, I will take the position in favour of clients as McDonald already admit
in the court that about 700 burn accidents occurred before as well, but company could not have
taken any precautionary measures to protect the consumers further, If the staff member/s
observed the irresponsible handling of hot coffee and hot pickle by consumers, so they must have
been warned. Hence, the proactive alertness in /McDonald staff members need further training
and more alertness is required to help consumer out of the way. The corporation is earning 2.7
million in two days of coffee sales alone , therefore a small portion of this revenue can be used in
providing customized holders or adjustable trays for specific need consumers. Moreover, printed
warnings were also not present and then responsibility transferred to consumers only without
entertaining the initial meager amount pf $2000 towards medical expenses, demanded by
Liebeck. This rigid and non-empathetic attitude needs punishment and corrective action for the
corporation.