Part 1 (Protection of American consumers)
Accepting a license, software or a product from a Company makes one appears like they are assenting to liability in the event that they inflict an injury on themselves while using the product. This is unfair since there is a likelihood that the Company which produced the commodity was negligent, implying that insufficient action was taken to guarantee one the protection that they need to prevent the occurrence of such an adverse event. According to Joanne Doroshow, an executive director at the center for justice and democracy, when a person is hurt by somebody out of their negligence, they have a right to hold such wrongdoer accountable ( Tennis, 2016, 8.41-9.04). In the Hot coffee case which involved Liebeck vs McDonald`s it was further revealed that the Company had previously received more than 700 cases regarding burns from the hot coffee they served their consumers.
There is no doubt that American consumers require to be protected especially now that many firms are ignoring certain occurrences which they are liable for by terming this as the liability a consumer. For example, when Stella Liebeck was seated on the passenger seat of a car at the parking lot, she put the cup of hot coffee she had purchased from McDonald`s between her knees in an attempt to put some sugar in it when it spill on her leaving severe burns on her inner thighs which cost her up to $10000 in medical bills, yet when McDonald`s was contacted they only sent $800 ( Tennis, 2016, 4.42-8.18). In such a case, the victim is justified to pursue legal action against the production Company, just like Stella did.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Further negligence is reflected in McDonald`s policy which required that the franchise responsible regulates the temperature of the coffee to be between 180 0 F to 190 0 F ( Tennis, 2016, 10.50). If no action is taken to protect the consumer in such a case, there is a possibility that another person may become a victim of a similar circumstance. An institution that engages in such wrongdoing ought to be charged for punitive damages or recklessness as was the case in the incident involving Liebeck, since this will ascertain that better protective measures are put in place.
Part 2
Tort reform is a term that is thrown around a lot today. What is it and who wants it and why do they want it?
The term tort reform refers to the laws which restrict the rights of people to go to court in the event that they experience an incident that causes them harm ( Tennis, 2016, 16.44). This has been used as a tool by large corporations in an attempt to guarantee them protection in the event that an injured consumer decides to sue the Company responsible. In most cases against such businesses, the lawyer often offers the McDonald`s hot coffee case as a reference which guarantees that they are justified to allude to the tort reform in an attempt to protect the defendant. Besides, Companies are in need of this reform to prevent consumers from getting huge settlements ( Tennis, 2016, 18.16).
Do you think it is needed and it is fair?
The tort reform is needed although it is not entirely fair. Its unfairness is mainly based on its ability to offer protection to negligent Companies who are sued by genuine consumers. An example of such a case pertains to an individual who sued the telephone Company when a car lost control and crashed the telephone booth which he was using ( Tennis, 2016, 21.20-21.48). The man had tried unsuccessfully to get out although the booth`s door got stuck leaving him to suffer severe damage to the extent of losing his leg. On the contrary, it is justifiable since it safeguard`s the interest of Companies from rogue consumers who are out to make a living from settlements.
How does it relate to limitation of liability clauses?
The relation of the tort reform to limitation of liability clauses is based on the caps which ascertain that compensations are only paid up to a specified limit. In this case, the injured person does not get the full course of justice compared to the harm caused. If one has been harmed, for instance, in the event of permanent disability, or blindness, the victim deserves to be compensate sufficiently since the injuries caused are non-economic in nature ( Tennis, 2016, 36.07-36.19). President Obama once stated that he does not advocate for caps on malpractices since they may end up being unfair to a person who has been wrongfully harmed ( Tennis, 2016, 27.43-27.54).
Should consumers have a venue to sue when they have been wronged by a product or service they have purchased?
Consumers should have a venue to sue since failure to do so would lead the Company to ignore similar complaints from other consumers. Also, the idea that the injuries caused by the product or service are non-economic in nature is enough to justify a legal suit.
Why is the national Chamber of Commerce so concerned about tort reform they will go to the extent of trying to influence judicial elections?
The reason why there is a lot of concern regarding the tort reform is majorly due to the financial attachment it bears. Candidates are greatly dependent on financiers for their campaigns, and the individuals who donate the largest portion are the top corporate entities advocating for the tort reform. As a result, the national chamber of commerce was vouching for candidates who have significant influence on Judiciary matters. This is due to the fact that the latter individuals would be expected to rule in favor or the corporate entities in matters where the tort reform applied by applying caps regulating the amount required to be paid in damages to the victim. This is essentially what came to be termed as Justice for Sale (Tennis, 2016, 44.33).
Reference
Tennis (2016, Nov 7). Hot Coffee . [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI-OLa8iNOk
