Cases Analysis: The Liebeck v. McDonald’s lawsuit, and the Pearson v. Chung’s Introduction The Liebeck v. McDonald’s story and the Pearson v. Chung’s lawsuit were two well-known cases that were regarded as trivial in the United States of America in 1994 and 2005, respectively.. The Liebeck v. McDonald’s lawsuit, known as the “McDonald java case”, involved a 79-year-old lady Stella Lieback, who accidentally poured the hot coffee she bought from McDonald onto her lap and this resulted into a continual sequence of third level burns. From her court action against McDonalds, the court ruled in her favour and she was paid huge amounts of money. The coffee was not only hot, but also scalding, able to inflict instant and severe injuries to the epidermis and muscular (Letric Law, 2011). The Pearson v. Chung case, also known as the “pants lawsuit”, (Lexis-Nexis, 2008) engaged an attorney in the Region of Mexico who, after asserting the loss of a pair of his trousers, sued and charged the dry cleaning business for $67 million.
She took 10 million dollars from him but once the lawyers found out that both of her parents had died because of smoking-related, lung cancer deaths she wisely gave it back. People file ridiculous lawsuits all the time against larger companies, and it's certainly possible that the industry could team up to
The main point delivered should be to get in touch with Aventis and come to a conclusion as to how this contamination occurred. Kraft should take the lead at alerting the media and consumers, with the latter being the most important stakeholders involved in this crisis. Kraft’s communication strategy should be released quickly, approved by YUM Brands, and developed in a way that all stakeholders involved receive the same information. A description of health side-effects caused by the consumption of contaminated shells, recall and refund information, and clear indication that Taco Bell is not associated with the shell manufacturing process should be included in the
Simply put a business should always operate with openness, honesty, and lucidity, and keeps its word. This principle is almost identical to White’s second guideline of “total honesty.” Ephesians 4:25 states; “Therefore, having laid aside falsehood, each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” CRT’s fourth principle refers to respect the rules and conventions. That includes respecting all applicable national and international laws, regulations and conventions, no matter where you are working while trading fairly and competitively (Caux Round Table, 2003). This could be compared to White’s fourth guideline of “personal responsibility,” which stresses the importance of taking full responsibility for our decisions and our actions (White, 1978). If we don’t follow the laws, regulations, and conventions then we take responsibility for the action and accept the consequences.
Agreed Ways of Working Agreed ways of working, this is exactly how you will work. It is important to know what is expected of you in your role and in turn what to expect from others. In health and social care, there are agreed ways working you will have with an employer; also, with service users. Some examples of agreed ways of working in health and social care are: 1) An agreed way of working with an employer would be to follow safety procedures relating to health and safety, for example, to follow the Food Hygiene Regulations 2005. This regulation concerns how food should be handled safely to avoid contamination and food poisoning.
Camenisch’s view is that the goods and services are the center of the business ethics for they promote the profit. However, the goods and services must be in the interest of all persons and all future generations of people. Business should not use resources irresponsibly at the risk of leaving nothing for others. It should be the focus of business ethics to interact within society while enabling “its members to flourish, specifically that part which deals with the provision if the material means for sustaining and enhancing life.” (p. 288) D. W Haslett’s argument is that inheritance is unjustified. Wealth is the accumulation of money that is passed on to future generations which is different from income which is the money earned in one’s lifetime.
Starbucks mission statement acts as a guide for their internal efficiencies by making sure the customers come first and only get the best. Making it priority that they are served with the best service, and that they are served the finest coffee. Starbucks feels that their job is never done, and that there is always room for improvement. To redirect their internal efforts Starbucks is prepared for improvement anywhere. With them making the customers their first priority they understand that they have to be on their toes and prepared to change anything.
This helps to ensure that no information about new products or competitors is divulged by employees. The code of ethics also states that all of Pepsi-Cola Co.’s employees should act with the utmost integrity to ensure that the code of ethics is abided to by others in Pepsi-Cola Co. According to “PepsiCo” (2008) code of ethics sections Accounts and Record
McDonald’s Hot Coffee Stella Liebeck and her spilled coffee from McDonalds was one of the biggest media hits ever. The Stella Liebeck case was published, distributed and broadcast worldwide. The media turned on this old lady making her look like a bad person who just wanted money, and made everyone who watched it or read about it in the newspaper believe that she was indeed a person who just wanted money. What the media left out when the published their articles was the real facts of what really happened to Mrs. Liebeck. Mrs. Liebeck after receiving her coffee from the drive true assistant, and the vehicle that she was in still stationary, placed the coffee between her legs and began removing the lid to add her sweeteners to her drink, while doing so the coffee spilled emptying all its contents on to her legs and groin area.
A Significant Tort Case McDonald's coffee case: An American court case that became a cause célèbre for advocates of tort reform. An 81-year old woman received 3rd degree burns from spilled coffee purchased from the restaurant chain and sued to recover her costs. The coffee that patrons bought at the drive-through, it turns out, was heated to be much hotter than the coffee they served inside was. The jury found the conduct of McDonald's so objectionable that they not only awarded her compensatory damages, but awarded the woman millions of dollars in punitive damages. Many casual observers considered this excessive.