Mcdonalds Ethical Decision
McDonald’s Ethical Dilemma
Are McDonald’s, Motor City and Starbucks at fault in situations such as these, in my opinion absolutely not? I remember I read a story about a case similar to this one, a couple, the McMahons was on a trip and stopped for coffee, the coffee spilled and the wife suffered burns. They sued the makers of the brewing machine saying it was brewing the coffee too hot. The trial was taken to court and although the court sympathized with the McMahons they believed that it cannot be that producing hot liquids makes a machine defective any more than a knife is defective because its blade is sharp. The McMahons stated that the coffee machine should have warnings on it but they both said in their depositions that they knew before purchasing the coffee that it is served hot and that there is a possibility that the coffee can cause burns. Finally the courts felt that judging in favor of the McMahons would have bad effects for other people who like their coffee hot. One of the cases referenced in McMahon v Bunn-O-Matic was Nadel v Burger King. In Nadel v Burger King, Paul Nadel and his mother, Evelyn was driving his children to school. Paul’s son, Christopher was sitting in the front between them. On the way, they ordered breakfast from the drive-through window of a Burger King restaurant. Paul's order included several breakfast sandwiches and drinks and two cups of coffee. Evelyn tasted the coffee and found it too hot to drink. The lid of the coffee “jiggled off” and burned her on her right leg after she lifted the flap. After bending the flap of the lid so that it was closed, Evelyn returned the cup, covered by the lid, to the container. She put the container of coffees on the floor next to Christopher's foot when Paul drove away from the restaurant, making a left turn onto a street. At that point, Christopher began screaming that his foot was burned. Christopher, Paul, and Evelyn discovered that one or both of the cups had tipped, and that
Are McDonald’s, Motor City and Starbucks at fault in situations such as these, in my opinion absolutely not? I remember I read a story about a case similar to this one, a couple, the McMahons was on a trip and stopped for coffee, the coffee spilled and the wife suffered burns. They sued the makers of the brewing machine saying it was brewing the coffee too hot. The trial was taken to court and although the court sympathized with the McMahons they believed that it cannot be that producing hot liquids makes a machine defective any more than a knife is defective because its blade is sharp. The McMahons stated that the coffee machine should have warnings on it but they both said in their depositions that they knew before purchasing the coffee that it is served hot and that there is a possibility that the coffee can cause burns. Finally the courts felt that judging in favor of the McMahons would have bad effects for other people who like their coffee hot. One of the cases referenced in McMahon v Bunn-O-Matic was Nadel v Burger King. In Nadel v Burger King, Paul Nadel and his mother, Evelyn was driving his children to school. Paul’s son, Christopher was sitting in the front between them. On the way, they ordered breakfast from the drive-through window of a Burger King restaurant. Paul's order included several breakfast sandwiches and drinks and two cups of coffee. Evelyn tasted the coffee and found it too hot to drink. The lid of the coffee “jiggled off” and burned her on her right leg after she lifted the flap. After bending the flap of the lid so that it was closed, Evelyn returned the cup, covered by the lid, to the container. She put the container of coffees on the floor next to Christopher's foot when Paul drove away from the restaurant, making a left turn onto a street. At that point, Christopher began screaming that his foot was burned. Christopher, Paul, and Evelyn discovered that one or both of the cups had tipped, and that