Liebeck V Monk's Restaurant

5. Issue:
The issue is whether Kramer can file suit with Monk’s Café for punitive damages for the burns he suffered on his groin from the coffee he bought at Monk’s Café.

Rule:
“The jurors say their punitive damages award was based on the fact McDonald's had received more than 700 prior complaints about the scalding water in its coffee, and while many caused injuries, the company had done nothing about it” ('HOT COFFEE').

Punitive damages are defined as, “damages awarded in cases of serious or malicious wrongdoing to punish or deter the wrongdoer or deter others from behaving similarly called also exemplary damages smart money: (Damages). Application:
This is similar to the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants the only major difference
6. Issue:
The issue is whether Claire can collect damages for her injury from Kramerica Incorporated.

Rule:
“Special damages: damages awarded in an amount deemed to compensate for losses that arise not as a natural result of the injury but because of some particular circumstance of the injured party” (Damages).

Application:
Claire suffered a concussion when Kramer and Darren dropped a giant ball of oil out the window to test internal bladder for oil tankers prototype. Along with her concussion she also suffered panic attacks and fear of rubber balls because of the incident.

Conclusion:
Because Kramer and Darren were acting upon Kramerica Incorporated when they dropped the ball, which fell onto Claire, Claire can try to collect damages for her injury from both Kramerica Incorporated and Kramer and Darren.

7. Issue:
The issue is whether Kramerica Incorporated violated The Clean Water Act by having oil leak into the storm drain.

Rule:
“The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters… The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained”
If wind of this incident gets reported then Kramerica Incorporated could face violation charges for violating the Clean Water Act.

8. Issue:
The issue is whether Elaine can be charged with credit card fraud for using her company credit card for personal expenses.

Rule:
“Credit fraud is a broad term for the use of a credit card (or any comparable type of credit) to buy goods or services with the intention of evading payment. Credit fraud includes: fraud spree: unauthorized charges on existing accounts” (Debit / Credit Card Fraud).

Application:
It is unclear if Elaine had a policy in place with Peterman Inc. as to what she was able to use the company credit card for. Typically a company issued credit card is to be used on company expenses and not personal expenses. B

Conclusion:
Because Elaine used her company credit card for her own personal use and racked up a large bill. Peterman Inc. can charge her with credit card fraud. If she was only to use the card for company expense they could claim Elaine went on a fraud spree – of charging unauthorized charges onto the existing company