Hot coffee spill worth cool award McDonald ’s may fork over $2.9 million Denver Post Copyright 1994 Friday‚ August 19‚ 1994 The Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE - A woman‚ who was scalded when her McDonald ’s coffee spilled won a jury award of $2.9 million - or about two days ’ coffee sales for the fast-food chain. Lawyers for Stella Liebeck‚ 81‚ who suffered thirddegree burns in the 1992 incident‚ contended that McDonald ’s coffee was too hot. A state district court jury imposed $2.7 million in
Premium Coffee Damages Burn
to be a moral being‚ we can engage in actions or act according the maxim or principle in which that maxim could become by our will a universal law. This maxim or principal is applicable to everyone and I could not be of exception. According to the categorical imperative‚ we must comply with certain duties. Kant draws a distinction between perfect duties and imperfect duties. A perfect duty is a maxim‚ which one must always do. An imperfect duty shall not be ignored‚ but it’s possible to be fulfilled
Premium Immanuel Kant Categorical imperative Philosophy
Tort Scenarios BUS/415 Introduction In week three we were provided with two scenarios and were asked to analyze the tort actions found in both. The first scenario involves fans and participants at a football game; including a father and son‚ and angry fan‚ stadium workers‚ and other spectators. Actions that transpire include the spilling of beer on one fan by another‚ a shove of one fan of anther‚ a fall‚ injury‚ yelling‚ and repercussions of the stated actions. The second scenario we analyzed
Premium Tort
States justice system‚ a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be traced back to the initial trespass of property or person‚ but it was not until the 18th century that the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). In recent years‚ tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in tort costs‚ insurance liability
Premium Tort Tort law Common law
TORT TUTORIAL 7 * Differences between libel and slander. Is the distinction of practical significance? Defamation protects an individuals reputation. Slander refers to a malicious‚ false‚ and defamatory spoken statement or report (non- permanent)‚ while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.(permanent) The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material
Premium Tort Human rights Abuse
Torts and Damages I . Concept/ Definition The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system. Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another‚ there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant‚ who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done
Premium Tort Law
History of Tort Law in India and Tort Law in the United States Of America A tort can be known as that area of law wherein the courts provide remedies of permitting a lawsuit for damages in acknowledgement of a private or civil wrong. In India and the United States Of America‚ resemblance in law‚ if any‚ seems to have been inherited from the legal practices as took place in the British era. In India‚ tort law has been only in implementation since towards the end of the British rule. However
Premium Common law Tort
TORTS – INTENTIONAL TORTS PRIMA FACIE Battery is the (1) intentional infliction of (2) a harmful or offensive (3) contact. Offensive includes acts damaging to a “reasonable sense of dignity.” No knowledge of contact is required. (Rationale: protection of personal integrity. Freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact. Offensive harm included b/c of mental injuries). ▪ To have a claim of battery‚ there must be a claim of fault‚ negligence‚ or wrongdoing on the part of
Premium Tort law Tort
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562‚ • Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law‚ you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question‚ Who is my neighbour? … You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
Premium Duty of care Tort Reasonable person
Wolley’s estate could continue the lawsuit and proceed with the case in the name of the plaintiff. If any damages were awarded they would be distributed by the executor to the family members. 3. The court here is changing the law of employment in New Jersey. It is making case law‚ and the rule here articulated governs similar future cases in New Jersey. Why did the court make this change? The court made the change to avoid having disgruntled employees sue their employers for no reason. An employer
Premium Employment Law