Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The case of Liebeck v. McDonalds regarding the formers injury is a matter of public importance and, therefore, should be decided for providing the requested award in order to demonstrate the need for a change. This stance is explained by the fact that similar occasions contribute to the elaboration of measures ensuring customers safety. Moreover, as follows from the recent study, the fact that the plaintiff intended to receive monetary compensation for this event is not connected to juror perceptions concerning credibility and does not affect their decisions (Lecci & Martin, 2017). Therefore, the solution, which is reasonable from the perspective of justice and the common good, is to meet the presented demand.
In this case, all the elements of negligence are included, and this conclusion adds to the feasibility of the above decision. First, there is a clear legal duty of care of McDonalds as a principal condition of healthy relationships with their customers. In this situation, the neglect of risks of burns while maintaining unsafe practices is unacceptable. Second, its breach is evident from the considered event, which resulted in Liebecks hospitalization. The awareness of this possibility confirmed by the restaurants employees and owners proves the illegal nature of their operations.
Third, causation was established by the witness, the womans grandson, and the fact that the affected person could foresee the consequences of her actions does not exempt McDonalds from liability. The injuries could have been less severe if the temperature of its drinks was appropriate. Fourth, the damage inflicted by this circumstance is confirmed by the hospital workers, and it contributes to the need for compensation. Even though satisfying all similar occasions does not seem fair, the lack of precedents requires increasing the awareness of businesses through this means to emphasize the necessity to comply with safety considerations.
Reference
Lecci, L., & Martin, A. (2018). The impact of clinical diagnosis and plaintiffs award request on mock juror damage awards and injury perceptions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(4), 522-538. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.