McDonald and the Stella Liebeck Scalding - Case Study Example

Case Study: Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurant. Facts: McDonald’s acknowledges that at, 140 degrees Fahrenheit, coffee in Styrofoam cups posed a risk of burning the consumers’ throat and mouth. This risk established the restaurant avails burn hazards for foods served above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. However, McDonalds claimed they ignored the safety ramifications of coffee sold at 180 degrees Fahrenheit. During discovery, 700 coffee burn claims within the span of a decade sufficed. This situation begs the question, within the 10 years and with such complaints, why did McDonald’s, a company of means, not investigate the safety ramifications of their 180 degrees Fahrenheit coffee? McDonalds further maintained that this temperature was essential in maintaining optimum taste in the coffee, a feature most customers “prefer” to their safety. The court, while holding that McDonalds was largely responsible for the burns Stella Liebeck received from the scalding coffee moved to acknowledge that the plaintiff was partly responsible for her injuries. They based this decision on comparative negligence and the fact that the warning on the coffee was not sufficient. A company should be responsible for most but not all of the consequences of consumers using its products. The first reason why any company should be ware of consumers’ affairs is the fact that consumers are also stakeholders. In the realm of business, in most cases, consumers are secondary stakeholders. However, consumer’s intermittent ability to affect the running of a company (Gibson 245) should not be underestimated, case in point, the Stella Liebeck law suit. As such, accepting the consequences of its goods and services, a company builds a foundation on which it can make profits while satisfying its customers. Secondly, accepting liability in regard to consumers ensures that the company gains the trust of its consumers. Gaining trust is instrumental when a business seeks a market niche and also to apply strategies such as cost leadership. From the actions of McDonald’s one can see that there is a clear need to fulfill customer needs for profit maximization. An excellent example is keeping the coffee extremely hot to maintain its taste. However, an intriguing concept is the aspect of duty and fiduciary relationship. Scholars hold that the interactions between a consumer and company should not reflect “a means to an end” character. Therefore, a company should pursue a fiduciary relationship rather than a duty oriented strategy. Fear of lawsuits and a dwindling market position should not be the only reason why a company strives to accept liability for its actions. Scholars such as Goodpaster argue that strategic thinking favors prudence rather than moral obligation. Society today is ablaze with ethical debates ranging from euthanasia to the rights of terrorists. The business world is not dormant on issues of ethics. A company by law and social stratification should consider the welfare of all its consumers regardless of the monetary ramifications. Philosophical ethics will argue against the actions of businesses with the claim that the self interest that causes them to pursue moral acts renders the act immoral. Gibson postulates that a company should treat its consumers as more than profit maximization tools thus the deontological approach. At this point, it is imperative to examine a moral act by the company Johnson & Johnson. In 1982, cyanide contaminated batch of its capsules killing more than half a dozen individuals. This led them to acknowledge fault, pull out 32 million bottles of the presumed contaminated product from the market and face crippling loses. However, after a while the company built its name again and regained its market position. This is what Gibson christens the bottom line. Despite the motive behind an action, the result is that both stakeholders were happy. McDonald fails in that it fails to accept rightful responsibility especially when the plaintiff requested medical compensation. Holding a customer fully responsible for all consequences of using a product or service is absurd. However, the reconciliation thesis in light of consumer negligence should apply to both the company and the individual. The “trick” is defining the magnitude to which each party is responsible. By virtue of a company being well aware of the intricacies of their products and services, they should be largely responsible. On the other hand, by virtue of caveat emptor the consumer has sufficient knowledge on the same; therefore, they should be partly responsible. McDonald’s restaurant claims that one of its strategies, despite its prominent market status, is benchmarking. In view of the current business situation in the world, experts hold that benchmarking should not restrict to comparison of similar market competitors. In this case, McDonald should have borrowed a leaf or a whole tree for that matter from Johnson & Johnson in view of the Stella Liebeck scalding. Nonetheless, for profit organizations have their own bottom line; profits. In light of this, strict liability is not a notion such businesses willingly embrace. Secondly, one should take into account the negligence of the consumer given the fact that the company cannot oversee the use of their goods by all customers. As such, the consumer should be held partly responsible for their actions in regard to mishaps arising from the use of a product as rightly ruled in the Stella Leibeck lawsuit (Gibson 246). The other reason why customers should be held liable is that there is a possibility of their claims having a self serving front equal to a company’s need to profit(Gibson 250). However, Caveat Emptor is only applicable in some circumstances. Many scholars misinterpreted the implications of this phrase. In summary, this phrase holds that the consumer should take care. Yanking a Styrofoam cup of hot coffee while placed in between ones thighs is not a careful move. From the court proceedings, it was clear that McDonald’s saw their situation as one where the customer was fully liable but, the jury held otherwise. Given the inevitability of goods or services causing damages, the consumers should be in the light in regard to what to expect from a product. Awareness can be created through oral warnings, written warnings or in some cases implied warnings (through conduct). Warnings and agreements may be legal or otherwise. Nonetheless, companies require some form of agreements between themselves and consumers that safeguard both parties from harm caused by goods and services offered. Gibson reflects that a business should operate under the guidance of acceptable moral agreements. Morality encompasses informing the consumer of the possible threats, of the product or service they seek to purchase. While most of the moral agreements are not in writing, warnings should preferably appear in writing. The full extent of a hazard should be expressed in writing which should appear in legible, noticeable font. Full extent implies that, in view of the McDonalds case, the customer knows the temperature of coffee at the time of purchase. Secondly, the warning should include the implications of the coffee being at that temperature. To this, McDonalds was at fault because they acknowledged that the writing on their cups was not a warning but a reminder. Secondly, the jury found the warning insufficient. Works Cited: Gibson, Kevin. Business Ethics: People, Profits, and the Planet. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Read More