Reference no: EM133184436

• Punitive damage awards exist to deter future harmful actions. What level of award do you believe is necessary to achieve that deterrence effect? When would a cap on such awards under-cut the purpose of the awards?

• How can a jury apportion responsibility for injury between plaintiff and defendant? What principles could be used to establish a respective percentage responsibility as was done in the Liebeck case?

• Was McDonald's action in the coffee case reckless as the judge claimed? Can a corporation legitimately block such a charge if it has evidence of customer preferences to explain its actions?

• Given the facts as presented, if you had been on the jury, would you have voted to award Liebeck damages? Would you have awarded the same amount?

• What differences do you see in the coffee and obesity cases? are those differences relevant enough to warrant different conclusions in the two cases?

• The judge in the Pelman case initially seemed willing to entertain the idea that a fast-food restaurant might be legally liable for obesity-related health problems suffered by customers. Is there a basis for his apparent openness? Would it ever be reasonable to hold a corporation responsible for the effects of customers' food selections?

• What do you think of the wisdom of creating a permanent barrier to lawsuits against an industry or a company through targeted legislation?

• Are McDonald's responses to the national obesity epidemic adequate? Do they reflect sufficient acknowledgment of corporate responsibility to assist with a social problem? are they driven by an ethical or a public relations concern, or both?