Consequently, McDonald’s is liable to pay to Liebeck for all the damages.
In this scenario, I would analyse this situation from the Communitarian point of view. It speaks of shifting the balance of rights and responsibilities from the individual to the society. Liebeck here is at the same time trying to enjoy the liberty of being a free individual and is also trying to shift the blame of her individualistic errors in actions and judgement on to McDonalds. But still under the principle of compensatory justice, McDonalds by giving compensation to Liebeck, tried to restore her for the burns she received by the coffee spill over. (Bohlman and Dundas, 2004) However, there are no hard and fast rules when determining the compensation. But ethics and law make an effort that the tortfeasor is able to restore an amount equal to the loss incurred. But Liebeck here got compensation not on basis of her damages but on the basis of earnings which McDonalds makes. Important here is that Liebeck here received such generous amount in damages not because she got injured. But because McDonalds acted rash and used statistics over ‘ethics of care’ in dealing with Liebeck; which made the jury decide the verdict in her favour.
2) In light of the above case, what would you propose as an outline plan if you were in charge of business that supplied scientific equipment to engineering laboratories? Assume you have a contract in place to supply the laboratory for 10 years.
When assuming the role of a supplier of scientific equipment to the engineering laboratories. The most important law that I must be aware of is the ‘Contract Law’. A contract is made between two parties by the process of offer and acceptance. In this case, engineering laboratories would have made an offer of to my firm for supply of equipment. The offer would have had clearly written down the details of equipment needed and all details pertaining to the business should be written. Then, my