Part A.
-- you are the
lawyer for Stella Liebeck, suing McDonalds for negligence in selling hot,
scalding coffee.
Consumers are entitled to safety and to a healthy and sustainable environment as fully enshrined in the Consumer Product Safety Commission (HG, 2014). Consumers are entitled to safety and to a healthy and sustainable environment as fully enshrined in the COnsumer Product Safety Commission (HG, 2014). This is a fundamental right that should be the primary goal of McDonalds. McDonalds received 700 claims by people burned by its coffee in just a single decade from 1982 to 1992 (Lectric Law Library, 2014). It is an act of knowledge, which puts McDonalds on the position of responsibility and negligence in ensuring that Mrs Leiback's right to safety was assured. To argue that consumers should have consumed the coffee back home is shallow and narrow and it is an excuse on the reality that McDonalds marketed their coffee as a consumable while consumers are on their cars as evidenced by the fact that they sell coffee in a drive through as what happened to Mrs Leiback.
While I understand that McDonalds
should sell warm coffee as consumers demanded, but I also acknowledged the fact
that even McDonald's own manager noted that consumers won't be able to drink
coffee served at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Even more, McDonalds failed to
warn consumers about the extent of burns. Even in the knowledge of the serious
injuries the product can cause consumers, McDonalds failed, I repeat that,
failed, to exhaust efforts to ensure the safety of Mrs. Leiback, thus making
McDonalds responsible for negligence.
Part B.
-- you are a
lawyer for Ms. Liebeck, suing a media organization such as NBC Television, for
defamation, distorting the story in its news broadcasts and its comedians
ridiculing Ms. Liebeck and causing her mental anguish and possibly, financial
harm.
Mrs. Leiback had been through a hard
time on her fight against the giant McDonalds, fighting her right - and not
just hers but for the hundreds - to consumer safety. But NBC Television has
added injury to the wound by distorting the story to paint Mrs. Leiback as the
sucker and McDonalds as the nobler one. The First Amendment does not, by its
language and its intent, warrant wrongful distortion of known facts,
situations, and circumstances. While freedom of the press is warranted, this is
not absolute when it already puts another person in a bad light, thereby
curtailing another person's right to privacy, equality against prejudices,
especially when a case is filed before prior courts; wherein, such broadcast
may create public prejudices (Ghosh, 2014).
It seems that the plight of Mrs
Leiback has not been enough, she also suffered mental anguish for distorted
news being broadcast throughout the country as carried out by NBC Television.
Mrs Leiback has the right to be heard in courts of law or in public forums. It
must be acknowledged that as a member of the third state, the media, NBC
Television has the responsibility to be impartial and cold with its news to
avoid bias and prejudices. However, this has not been the policy being used
with regards to Mrs. Leiback.
References:
Ghosh, S. (2014). The
price for defamation. Retrieved from http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column- the-price-for-defamation-1993687
Lectric Law
Library. (2014). The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case. Retrieved
from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Stout, H. (2013). Not
Just a Hot Cup Anymore. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html?_r=1&
