Reference no: EM133451475

Case Study: Liebeck v. McDonald's illustrates how Stella Liebeck's grievance against McDonald's over hot coffee evolved into a law suit that drew considerable national attention. The case produced two narratives, or story lines, one dealing with the legal claim involved in the litigation (products liability) and the other about whether Liebeck's case illustrates a legal system where, instead of taking responsibility for their own action, people shift responsibility by reaching through the law into the deep pockets of large multinational corporations to get rich. Think about how these competing narratives affects our perception of law, and especially whether the media puts a spin on litigation as it sells its own narrative to the public. This article provides some details about what happened to Stella Liebeck and her case against McDonald's. This video provides additional background. Among the significant information covered in these articles is that Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages, although the compensatory damages were reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck to be 20 percent responsible for the spill.

Question: Use this discussion board to discuss whether you think Stella Liebeck had a legitimate claim and particularly whether you think the case illustrates excessive litigiousness in American society. Draw upon materials in Chapter 4 of the Barkan text book in framing your comments. I encourage you to do additional research on the Internet about the Liebeck case and, when you do, provide citations to your sources.