According To This Doctrine, Who Is Responsible For Stella Liebeck's Burns?
University of the People
Assignment Week 7
28MAY2018
Student X
Introduction:
In my paper, I hope to address the case study known as “Hot Coffee” with regard to the following questions:
What does caveat emptor mean? According to this doctrine, who is responsible for Stella Liebeck’s burns? Explain.
Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it more difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
One aspect of the caveat emptor doctrine is that it maximizes respect for the consumer as an independent and autonomous decider. Could that be a reason for affirming that a seventy-nine-year-old is a better candidate than most for a caveat emptor ethics of consumption?
In general terms, what does it mean …show more content…
Now if that were solely the case here in the McDonald’s issue, then Stella would be completely responsible for the burns that she received. She should have checked the strength and ability of the Styrofoam cup, the heat of the coffee, etc.
Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it more difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
I am mixed on this question. On one hand, she may have had reduced senses and cognitive abilities – that makes it very difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude as McDonald’s would have the responsibility of ensuring the transaction with the client in that they also check for ability of the consumer to handle the product given. On the other hand, she was driving a vehicle and able to order the coffee and also felt confident enough to place the coffee between her legs in an attempt to multi-task driving and manipulating the coffee and anything else she may have been doing at the moment – that justifies a caveat emptor attitude in this case completely. I think, if I had to choose one or the other, I would say that a caveat emptor attitude is justified in this case, as, after 79 years of life, she should have had more common sense when it came to the handling of the coffee, regardless of temperature – the fact she was also behind the wheel at the time leads one to believe if she was operating within lawful boundaries (paying attention to the road at all
Assignment Week 7
28MAY2018
Student X
Introduction:
In my paper, I hope to address the case study known as “Hot Coffee” with regard to the following questions:
What does caveat emptor mean? According to this doctrine, who is responsible for Stella Liebeck’s burns? Explain.
Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it more difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
One aspect of the caveat emptor doctrine is that it maximizes respect for the consumer as an independent and autonomous decider. Could that be a reason for affirming that a seventy-nine-year-old is a better candidate than most for a caveat emptor ethics of consumption?
In general terms, what does it mean …show more content…
Now if that were solely the case here in the McDonald’s issue, then Stella would be completely responsible for the burns that she received. She should have checked the strength and ability of the Styrofoam cup, the heat of the coffee, etc.
Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it more difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
I am mixed on this question. On one hand, she may have had reduced senses and cognitive abilities – that makes it very difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude as McDonald’s would have the responsibility of ensuring the transaction with the client in that they also check for ability of the consumer to handle the product given. On the other hand, she was driving a vehicle and able to order the coffee and also felt confident enough to place the coffee between her legs in an attempt to multi-task driving and manipulating the coffee and anything else she may have been doing at the moment – that justifies a caveat emptor attitude in this case completely. I think, if I had to choose one or the other, I would say that a caveat emptor attitude is justified in this case, as, after 79 years of life, she should have had more common sense when it came to the handling of the coffee, regardless of temperature – the fact she was also behind the wheel at the time leads one to believe if she was operating within lawful boundaries (paying attention to the road at all