McDonalds - the Coffee Spill Heard Round the World - Case Study Example

McDonald’s The Coffee Spill Heard Round the World Question One of the essential issues in the Susan Liebeck case was thatshe was not advised on the coffee temperature, either by a McDonald’s staff or any writing on the coffee cup. Similarly, the issue of whether Liebeck exhibited negligence in the course of handling came out outstandingly in the course of and after completion of the trial (Carroll et al., 2010). Additionally, several questions were raised as to whether McDonald’s was paying no attention to most of the hot beverage injury cases that had been filed against it over time. The major issues in the Liebeck case are similar to those in the other incidents mentioned in the case study, as all the entities appear dissatisfied by the fact that they were not notified on the hotness of the products they consumed. In like manner, questions of negligence on the side of either the defendant or plaintiff were also raised in the other incidents. Divergent to the perception held by an extensive section of the population, the lawsuit was serious business and not frivolous. This is mainly because Susan Liebeck suffered third-degree burns, which do not heal without the input of skin grafting experts, thereby demanding a lot of treatment that denotes considerable medical expenses. Question 2 McDonald’s social responsibilities towards their clientele are as extensive as is the case for other corporate institutions. Economically, McDonalds is tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that it maintains a high level of operating frequency and that it upholds its strong competitive position. Legally, it is imperative for McDonalds to produce items that meet the minimum legal requirements and that it complies with the various local, state and federal legislations. Ethically, the organization has the obligation of making sure that the virtuous norms are not compromised in the process of accomplishing its corporate goals (Lee et al., 2013). Moreover, it is far-reaching for McDonalds to take into account the fact that both ethical behavior and corporate integrity routinely exceed compliance with the regulations. In like manner, it is imperative for customers to handle products such as hot coffee and hot hamburger with precaution, for such an approach characteristically comes in handy in averting any injuries they may sustain. Providing high quality goods and services and at the same time warning the clients of any conditions that may make them susceptible to harm is one mechanism that organizations can employ to give customers what they want and protect them. Question 3 One of the essential facts that support McDonald’s position in the Susan Liebeck case is that the top of the coffee had a warning message “Caution: Contents Hot.” Similarly, as argued by their legal team, most of their clients prefer hot coffee, and it has to be boiled to optimum temperature for the aromatics to be released. On the other hand, Susan Liebeck is particularly supported by the fact that before her incident, McDonalds had compensated over seven hundred cases of hot beverage injuries, some of them to the tune of over $500000 instead of regulating the temperatures at which their beverages are being prepared. Question 4 If I were a juror in the Susan Liebeck case, I would have reaffirmed similar ideologies held by the jury. This is because as mentioned in the case study, McDonalds did accede to the fact that its coffee can cause third degree burns to consumers by compensating the entities who had raised complains over the same concern in the past. I would have a similar position in the pickle case, as in both scenarios the parties suffered third-degree burns that caused them extensive pain and took quite a substantial duration to heal. Additionally, the concerned parties incurred sizeable medical expenses and were incapacitated for a given period. Question 5 The coffee burn and pickle burn cases are similar in the sense that in both cases, the parties involved were burned while trying to consume food products. On the other hand, the cases are different as coffee is liquid in nature and spreads faster, implying that it can burn an extensive region at the slightest contact and is a grave threat to consumer harm. McDonalds and other players in the fast food business should move with speed in case a client suffers from a burn when consuming their products, to assess the situations that resulted in the client being burned and make amends if the error originated from their end instead of waiting for trails (Campbell et al., 2009). By employing such a tactic, McDonalds, and other players would be demonstrating to the world that they value the role their customers play in their growth. Question 6 I presume true the fact that the case of Stella Awards is not a matter of joking about a serious matter, but rather it denotes creativity at its best, and the society should not be harsh towards such parties. Moreover, in as much as clients should proceed with caution while dealing with hot foods, organizations should be held accountable if they demonstrated any sign of negligence in the course of the production. Question 7 Just as it was the case in 1989 when a state appeals court ordered the Southern Airlines to award $460000 to a little boy who suffered severe burns from soup, I presume true the fact that these cases will not have any influence on future cases. Rather each case is an entity of its own, for the circumstances that lead to a customer suffering injuries are different. Under no setting should businesses be responsible for the carelessness of the clients. Instead, we trust our justice system that it will hold customers into account, in case they are at fault. Customers play a significant role in developing organizations into global brands (Thorne et al., 2008). I hold the judgment that in as much as great care should be taken when dealing with the young and the elderly, it is imperative for establishments to provide high-quality goods and services to all sets of consumers without giving privileged treatment to a particular group. References Campbell, D., & Woodley, S. (2009). Liability for products in a global economy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2010). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Mason, OH: CL-South-Western Cengage Learning. Lee, N., & Kotler, P. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Thorne, D. M., Ferrell, L., & Ferrell, O. C. (2008). Business and society: A strategic approach to corporate citizenship. Boston, Mass.; [Great Britain: Houghton Mifflin. Read More