interesting approach, celibacy, with incentives of a market economy comparisons. However, the example of product liability based on the McDonald's court case wrong
Thus, a motorist in the U.S. a million suit against McDonald's won because he was the paper cup of coffee was driving a car wedged between his legs and braking burns fetched. Reason: McDonald's had not indicated that such a thing could happen. Under such absurd cases eventually suffers the general public by the products become more expensive because they are sold with a kilo instructions. These show a direct correlation to all possible hazards of the product in order to avoid potential liability. Profiteers are only the lawyers for which the product liability is a welcome economic development.This now-famous case, something else happened as a very effective opponents of U.S. products liability kolpotiert so much is. The 79-year-old Stella Liebeck has been emptied by a McDonald's coffee incurred third-degree burns on lap, thighs and buttocks and had to eight days and hospitalized for two more years to be treated. The lady wanted compensation for U.S. $ 20,000 medical bills, McDonald's offered U.S. $ 800 The process has been proven that McDonald's the problem through 700 complaints known, their coffee was 20 degrees Celsius hotter than others and not informing their customers too little about their abnormally hot coffee. The court was said to McDonald's and Liebeck 80% to 20% and the latter owed U.S. $ 160,000 damages and $ 2.7 million to compensation. The judge reduced the latter to $ 480,000; so that Liebeck had received total U.S. $ 640,000. Liebeck and McDonald's went in appeal and regulated the matter out of court close (probably about as part of the judicial decisions). This case is an example of how American products liability is successful. Although one can assume that coffee is hot - but not cause third degree burns. McDonald's also announced that their customers consume the coffee mainly go and the reference to the cup just a reminder and a warning of the danger is. If I am a coffee with a temparature of 85-90 degrees Celsius (in the manual of McDonald's demands) would serve, I would burn my mouth too strong.
fact that a producer for defective products or related liability risks is, first of all make sense, since such a liability is forcing the company to a certain degree of care in production. But at the same time to put an incentive to shift the liability for all accidents and other damage to the producer.These products liability is not a ban, but a requirement for companies to produce safe products. Rather than individually regulate each area (such as hot may be a cup of coffee), the balancing of the need for protection of consumers against the company a market (yes, with lawyers and judges) is left. This is very effective because it relieved and the legislature has been shown to lead to safer products.
way: U.S. $ 2.7 million as the sales in accordance with the McDonald's makes coffee in two days. Disproportionate?
0 comments:
Post a Comment