Was The Lawsuit 'Frivolous' As Some People Thought Or Serious Business?

Prior to reading this case study, I formulated an opinion of the case years ago based on media reports and general discussions among friends. After reading the case, I became intrigued and wanted to know more about the circumstances of the case. I watched the documentary “Hot Coffee” and I was shocked and a bit embarrassed to discover I did not understand the facts of the case as I thought I did.

1. What are the major issues in the Liebeck case and in the following incidents? Was the lawsuit “frivolous” as some people thought, or serious business?
The major issues in the Liebeck case are McDonald’s handling of the case, the actions of Miss Liebeck that attributed to the incident, and the legal proceedings and outcome of the case.
McDonalds
By employing ethical standards in its processes, health and injury hazards will be mitigated. McDonalds must provide food that is free from contamination, within expiration limits, properly stored and properly prepared. Although ethical, these standards are also legal responsibilities that McDonalds must adhere to because it is subject to government inspection at any time. Although legally McDonalds can choose which suppliers it uses, it must make every attempt to use suppliers known to have standards that ensure the product they are buying is a safe quality product even if it is more expensive. McDonalds s also has a responsibility to package its food in a method that is safe for each item it sells. Customers must also be responsible for how food items are handled once in their possession. In this case study, some people could argue that Miss Liebeck was irresponsible or lacking common sense for attempting to open the coffee in the car while holding it between her legs. Customers should take some responsibility to make common sense decisions when taking possession of food. It would be impractical for McDonalds to be required to label a coffee cup with every possible dangerous situation that customers could encounter. It is impossible for companies to provide products void of all hazards. Placing to many safety devices on products may make them more
The difference between the cases is how each injury occurred, which makes a big difference in my opinion. In the pickle burn case, the claimed injury happened while consuming the food in what could be considered a normal process when eating a hamburger which in my opinion represents a more serious threat. In the hot coffee case, the injury occurred while the customer was handling the product between her knees, a manner many could argue was unsafe. I believe if the person in the hot pickle case was burnt from simply eating the hamburger in a normal way, the case would have more merit than the hot coffee case. Fast food companies should design safe packaging for their food products to limit the possibilities of injuries caused by hot food products. When customers are injured, companies should take the injuries seriously and thoroughly investigate. If the investigation reveals safety or quality escapes in any part of the process, changes should be implemented, and customers should be compensated for related injuries. If after investigating, no quality or safety issues are found and wrong doing by employees, companies should not be obligated to pay for customer