Pearson and Mcdonal Lawsuit Analysis Essay

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

Due to a lack of evidence, the LAPD wrongly accused Simpson of murdering Brown and Goldman. The glove that was supposedly worn by the killer did not fit Simpson. CBS news team said, “The leather glove seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath.”. The black leather glove had to fit Simpson for him to be guilty but it was way to tight and could not

The federal statute that has an extensive impact on state facilities and programs is Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. These 1983 law suits can have an enormous impact on the day to day operation of the state and local prisons and jails. These 1983 suits are civil actions and not criminal actions. This means the prisoners can file a civil law suit in a federal court and challenge the conditions in the state and local prisons. These law suits that were filed by inmates claim that the prison official deprived the inmates of their constitutional rights. The inmates argue that they were deprived of adequate medical care, protection against excessive force by other inmates and the correctional officers and the inmates wanted access to

Specific Purpose Statement: To persuade my audience that frivolous lawsuits are out of control in America

Just Recently at super kid schools little jimmy has been acused for the bologna on the ceiling crisis. Lately, in court the jurry has been unable to justify if it was jimmy or not. Just recently the court hired a new jurist in hopes for reaching an end for this case. At a recent court hearing they called jimmys mom to the stand. Jimmys mom swore on oath that she would not commit perjury. The judge asked what she has been packing in his lunch and she has been packing bologna sandwitches! Then, he asked if he had any special requests? Jimmys mom said yes, lately he has been requesting extra mustard. Then, they asked his friends and they said it was him! Soon after jimmy got a five hour detention and had to clean the bologna off the

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

The issues are with the data within those types of equipment. Client confidential information cannot be available to anyone outside the representing legal team. Using outside equipment creates a potential for data leak.

Shahmaleki’s complaint is futile because the statute limitation has run on the civil rights claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1982 does not include its own statutes of limitations. Instead, courts borrow limitation periods from state law. Courts adopt the most analogous limitations period. In Kansas, the analogous action for § 1983 is injury to the rights of another. That means under Kansas law, the statutes of limitations for claims arising out of § 1983 is two years. Here, the statutes of limitations period has passed. The claim set out by Shahmaleki arose on May 1, 2013. As two years have passed since the claim arose, the statute of limitations has run and this Court should dismiss Shahmaleki’s complaint.

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.

Lynn Hubbard is handicapped. She happens to also have her own law firm. In the past year, she sued more than 600 nearly irreproachable institutions for over two million dollars. Hubbard and her entourage of scheming lawyers have not done anything illegal. Some may argue that she has simply exercised her right to the legal system. In any case, Hubbard is part of the growing American society that has discovered large money in mass litigation. This rise in greedy and manipulative lawyers has provided Americans with a skewed financial interest in the American courtroom and has hindered the justice system as a whole. Congress must reexamine tort reform to provide Americans with a trustworthy and

I recall hearing about a case years ago when a lady sued McDonald’s over a spilled cup of coffee. I remember thinking to myself how lucky this lady must have been to win so much money over something that seemed frivolous to me. I felt as though she had won the lottery for something she not only could have prevented by using reasonable care, but also for something that happens often without a striking settlement of 2.9 million dollars. Without looking into the details then, I recently found out how misunderstood this story actually is.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.