I believe that McDonald's shouldn't have been required to compensate the victim because it was her own fault. As soon as it entered her car, it is her fault.
They should have to compensate the victim because they did not provide a sufficient warning that the coffee was hot. Even though the fact that coffee is hot is a well known fact they should still provide a warning to the customer.
No, The customer was the one who spilled the coffee. Knowing McDonald's is a profitable company, the person could have done it on purpose to receive"compensation" . So No, they should not be required to compensate the victim.
Yes. It's definitely her fault for not knowing how to hold a cup of coffee, thus spilling it and burning herself. However, McD did not know how to handle it, they did apologize, give her coupons and a little bit of money, but her burns were too severe and the money they gave her was barely a fraction of the cost of getting her fixed up. This is very ignorant and disrespectful on their end, and it's generally just not a good look.
no,i dont think McDonalds should be require to compensate the victim that had the coffee spilled of them, because it wasnt the McDonald work that did the spill
No, McDonald's shouldn't have to compensate a woman for spilling coffee on herself. The lawsuit wouldn't have occurred if the coffee hadn't been from such a large corporation. If it was from a Ma and Pa coffee shop, it would've simply been a woman spilling coffee on herself.
No they shouldn't have to compensate for the customers mistakes because there is an explicit warning saying to be careful on the cup so McDonald's covered all their bases in that sense.
considering the actual story, yes McDonald's should have compensated. the coffee was way hotter than it should have been and caused very serious burns to an elderly woman. now there are many situations where McDonald's was not responsible for whatever happened but when it comes to the famous coffee case, it was their fault.
Yes, McDonald's should compensate the victim. While it was the victims fault for spilling the coffee, there was no way the woman would've known the coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns.
McDonald's should have put a warning on the coffee and was aware of the safety issues as "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard." So, yes, McDonald's should have compensated.
no
ReplyDeleteNo, it is the customers fault for spilling the coffee, the company should not have to compensate for someone's mistake.
ReplyDeleteNo because it was the customers fault for spilling the coffee
ReplyDeleteI believe that McDonald's shouldn't have been required to compensate the victim because it was her own fault. As soon as it entered her car, it is her fault.
ReplyDeleteThey should have to compensate the victim because they did not provide a sufficient warning that the coffee was hot. Even though the fact that coffee is hot is a well known fact they should still provide a warning to the customer.
ReplyDeleteNo, The customer was the one who spilled the coffee. Knowing McDonald's is a profitable company, the person could have done it on purpose to receive"compensation" . So No, they should not be required to compensate the victim.
ReplyDeleteYes. It's definitely her fault for not knowing how to hold a cup of coffee, thus spilling it and burning herself. However, McD did not know how to handle it, they did apologize, give her coupons and a little bit of money, but her burns were too severe and the money they gave her was barely a fraction of the cost of getting her fixed up. This is very ignorant and disrespectful on their end, and it's generally just not a good look.
ReplyDeleteno,i dont think McDonalds should be require to compensate the victim that had the coffee spilled of them, because it wasnt the McDonald work that did the spill
ReplyDeleteIt was her fault because she should have known the risk.
ReplyDeleteNo, McDonald's shouldn't have to compensate a woman for spilling coffee on herself. The lawsuit wouldn't have occurred if the coffee hadn't been from such a large corporation. If it was from a Ma and Pa coffee shop, it would've simply been a woman spilling coffee on herself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, she should have known that the coffee was hot and been prepared for he hot coffee.
ReplyDeleteNo, McD should not have to compensate someone who cant hold a coffee correctly.
ReplyDeleteNo, if the customer spilled the coffee on herself than it's on her for the accident. In this case, this woman is just looking for money and attention.
ReplyDeleteNo, it was the customers fault for spilling the coffee and should've known it was hot
ReplyDeleteNo they shouldn't have to compensate for the customers mistakes because there is an explicit warning saying to be careful on the cup so McDonald's covered all their bases in that sense.
ReplyDeleteyes, it was unnecessarily hot
ReplyDeleteconsidering the actual story, yes McDonald's should have compensated. the coffee was way hotter than it should have been and caused very serious burns to an elderly woman. now there are many situations where McDonald's was not responsible for whatever happened but when it comes to the famous coffee case, it was their fault.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, McDonald's should compensate the victim. While it was the victims fault for spilling the coffee, there was no way the woman would've known the coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is common sense that coffee is hot, she dropped it on herself.
ReplyDeleteShalini
no she spilled it on herself
ReplyDeleteMcDonald's should have put a warning on the coffee and was aware of the safety issues as "During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard." So, yes, McDonald's should have compensated.
ReplyDeleteyes, if they were not properly informed about the hazardous product they were receiving
ReplyDelete