Business Law and profssional mail writing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Business Law and profssional mail writing - Essay Example However, closer look at the case and its potential to create harm to more people makes the case important and noteworthy. The fact of the case is that Stella Liebeck, got severely burnt on her thighs and posterior due to a jerk when her grandson started the car, causing hot, scalding coffee to spill over and around the middle of her thighs where she had placed the coffee cup. The coffee was steaming at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. The extent of scald was serious enough to hospitalize Stella for eight days and undergo skin grafting. The incident took place at a McDonald's outlet at Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1992 and generated lot of interest and debate in legal circles. Stella was in her late sixties then. Initially, Liebeck demanded 20,000 dollars as claim settlement. But McDonald refused, and ultimately the court ordered $160,000 be paid to Liebeck by McDonald in compensatory damages, and another $480,000 as punitive award. The amounts of compensation and punitive award appear abnormally high as compared to the actual damage suffered by the victim at the most needing hospitalization, few days of trauma, and loss of time and personal activities. However, the holistic view taken by law transcends such basic issues and goes on to include other larger aspects such as public interest, corporate responsibilities and obligations, deterrent and preventive measures, breach of trust, the company's attitude and approach, and scope, scale and likelihood of recurrence, among a host of other reasons. The sovereignty of law does not end with the aspects mentioned. Its outcome and verdict becomes a citation and reference point for similar cases that occurs, or may occur, elsewhere in the country. II. The Case of Palsgraf versus Long Island Railroad In this case a woman, Mrs. Palsgraf standing at a distance from where an incident of two men attempting to jump inside a moving train car leads to the fall of a package containing fireworks. The fireworks explode causing shock reaction at the other end of the railway platform and scales to fall injuring the victim. The victim files for compensation. The majority decision upheld by Judge Cardozo reversed the judgment of the Trial Term and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the injury caused to the complainant due to negligence could not be proved as something done intentionally or by an act of negligence. The act of the two guards standing close by in trying to save the men from falling triggered the fall of the exploding package. The dissenting voice of Judge J. Andrew dwells on the aspect of cause and effect. The fact of the matter was that the reactions of the two guards caused the package of fireworks to dislodge and fall on the tracks causing an explosion. The effect resulted in injury to the victim in the railway premises to which the defendants were the contributory cause. The effect may be referred as negligence but the compensation had to be paid. The dissenting judge points out that jurisprudence holds the cause responsible for the resulting effect even it occurs at a distance. By this