In Liebeck vs. McDonald’s, it seems that the plaintiff proved all elements of negligence including DUTY OF CARE, FACTUAL CAUSE, PROXIMATE CAUSE, BREACH, and DAMAGES. The research shows that gross negligence was detected in relation to McDonald’s customers who burned their skin as a result of extremely hot coffee all over the country. At the same time, the corporation’s management was aware of that situation and took no measures to improve the situation concerning sale, manufacture, and marketing of excessively hot coffee. Liebeck also proved that scarring on her body caused her both physical and psychological damages. Thus, it is evident that such a result of severe consequences required comprehensive recovery.
We will write a custom Essay on McDonald’s Company: Elements of Negligence specifically for you
301 certified writers online
One of the key arguments of McDonald’s was the statement that everyone knows that coffee is usually served hot, and Liebeck should know about it as well. Besides, the cups have the corresponding warning. The defendant insisted that it is a known fact that unsafe drinking of coffee heated to 190 degrees can cause burns. However, I consider that risk defense assumed by McDonald’s cannot be applied in this case as people older than 65 years are at more at risk of spilling coffee and thus more prone to burns. At this point, McDonald’s agreed that their clients are unlikely to assume that they will get third-degree burns in case they spill their coffee, especially if they cannot eliminate hot liquid immediately from their clothes. Therefore, it is possible to point out that Liebeck won the case as it was extremely dangerous from the side of this corporation to serve unreasonably hot coffee to its visitors.
Speaking of the Miami Beach police department Operation Intercept, it is possible to note that unmanned aerial vehicles that are also known as drones and drug dogs are applied in accordance with Fourth Amendment. Taking into account reasonable expectation of privacy, many people can consider that the use of the mentioned measures to fight against drug trafficking as non-constitutional, in other words, breaking the right to privacy declared by Constitution. However, it is essential to state that only reasonable search can be justified. This means that the appropriate use of drones and drug dogs assumes the search of public places and collection of certain types of information that are not prohibited by law, while states can establish their own statutes concerning this issue.
At the same time, Fourth Amendment guarantees a person’s right to protection of his or her property against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the fact that dog alert requires some time can cause debates around the topic of the legality of the prolonged detention. In particular, Fourth Amendment declares that solely traffic-based inquiries are to be made on highways. Besides, the roadway safety is not associated with dog sniff that, in its turn, causes some doubts in the constitutionality of police actions.
Thus, it can be concluded that Operation Intercept can be considered from different angles, thus leading to intense debates. Therefore, it seems that certain policies regarding this issue need to be developed and implemented in accordance with Fourth Amendment as well as states’ regulations. I would like to emphasize that in spite of successfulness of the operation initiated by the police head, it is of great importance to protect citizens’ right to privacy that is ensured by Constitution.