There is a common belief in America today that most lawsuits are just another ploy for the greedy to make money. People have lost sight of the good that our judicial system does for us and what a gift it is to be allowed to sue for any reason and anytime. Yes, it is true that people abuse that power but as George Lakoff, a professor of Neurolinguistics at UC Berkeley, said “Suing is heroic… when you win a case you win it for other people as well as gaining justice for yourself” (Hot Coffee).
On February 27, 1992, a seventy-nine-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she ordered a cup of coffee at the drive through of a McDonald’s Albuquerque, New Mexico. Shortly after they pulled into the parking …show more content…
Instead of seeing Mrs. Liebeck as a woman who was severely burned by a cup of coffee at near boiling temperatures that simply wanted her medical bills paid, the public saw a greedy woman taking advantage of this poor corporation and milking the judicial system for her economic advantage. This pushed people to start wanting tort reform because of these type of “frivolous” lawsuits. Tort Reform is “the argument that jury awards are excessive and need statutory reform” (Beatty, Samuelson, and Sánchez, 128). What these people didn’t understand was that they were being tricked by huge corperations disguised as citizen’s rights groups into asking their government officials to limit their access to and rights to go to court and it worked. A bill was passed by congress that put caps on punitive damages and president Bill Clinton vetoed it. Then these groups went to state legislatures and advertised tort reform to its constituents who were tricked into believing that our judicial system was flawed and needed to be reformed all the wile using McDonald’s cases the basis of their argument and it worked which is why some states have caps on punitive damages (Hot …show more content…
But this case was very clearly an ethical issue that needed to be addressed which is why I believe Mrs. Liebeck won her case. Even though there are no laws about brewing your coffee extremely hot there is when that coffee could hurt someone like it did in Mrs. Liebeck's and 700 other peoples case. It is illegal for companies to be negligent and omit warning labels from potentially dangerous products, even something as simple as a cup of coffee. Even though the punitive damages that are intended to deter companies from committing torturous acts were reduced I still believe they did their job because now every cup of McDonald’s coffee comes with a warning label reading “caution contents VERY hot” and the reminder of Stella
On February 27, 1992, a seventy-nine-year-old woman named Stella Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car when she ordered a cup of coffee at the drive through of a McDonald’s Albuquerque, New Mexico. Shortly after they pulled into the parking …show more content…
Instead of seeing Mrs. Liebeck as a woman who was severely burned by a cup of coffee at near boiling temperatures that simply wanted her medical bills paid, the public saw a greedy woman taking advantage of this poor corporation and milking the judicial system for her economic advantage. This pushed people to start wanting tort reform because of these type of “frivolous” lawsuits. Tort Reform is “the argument that jury awards are excessive and need statutory reform” (Beatty, Samuelson, and Sánchez, 128). What these people didn’t understand was that they were being tricked by huge corperations disguised as citizen’s rights groups into asking their government officials to limit their access to and rights to go to court and it worked. A bill was passed by congress that put caps on punitive damages and president Bill Clinton vetoed it. Then these groups went to state legislatures and advertised tort reform to its constituents who were tricked into believing that our judicial system was flawed and needed to be reformed all the wile using McDonald’s cases the basis of their argument and it worked which is why some states have caps on punitive damages (Hot …show more content…
But this case was very clearly an ethical issue that needed to be addressed which is why I believe Mrs. Liebeck won her case. Even though there are no laws about brewing your coffee extremely hot there is when that coffee could hurt someone like it did in Mrs. Liebeck's and 700 other peoples case. It is illegal for companies to be negligent and omit warning labels from potentially dangerous products, even something as simple as a cup of coffee. Even though the punitive damages that are intended to deter companies from committing torturous acts were reduced I still believe they did their job because now every cup of McDonald’s coffee comes with a warning label reading “caution contents VERY hot” and the reminder of Stella