User:Sailor Grant/sandbox

Sandbox IRAC

To be placed in the “Duty to Warn” Article under the product liability section:

FootSense Scenario:

“Our biggest concern is to protect against any product liability through our duty to warn. We do not want to pay lawsuits or end up having to close our business because we did not warn our customers about potential malfunctions of the smart orthopedic boot and they end up suing us because we did not see certain scenarios coming. What do we need to watch out for? How can we learn from precedents in terms of their duty to warn? What do we need to see coming?”

Learning from Precedents:

Scenario: McDonalds was sued after an elderly person got severely burned by its hot coffee. McDonald’s issued a warning on their coffee after a court found that their coffee was dangerous because of how hot it was.

Issues: Was McDonalds negligent for not warning their customers about the high temperatures of their coffee?

Rules: Generally, a company must provide the correct warnings and labels if a product presents any risks to the consumer. If one party A causes the injuries to another party B and could have warned party B of the hazards or failed to do so, then party A can be made liable for the injury (duty to warn).

Analysis: Here, McDonalds failed to warn their customers that their coffee was extremely hot as they had the opportunity to warn the customer.

Conclusion: Therefore, McDonalds should have predicted their product could cause harm and warn their customers of the potential danger of the hot beverage. This means that McDonalds is liable for any injuries caused by their product and the customer is able to sue McDonalds.

Neutrally-Voiced Summary

An issue in product liability cases is whether the product warranted a duty to warn about known dangers.

In the popularized Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case where Liebeck sued McDonalds for damages for injuries due to spilling hot coffee on her lap, McDonalds was cited not to have properly warned consumers about the inherent danger of their coffee product. Because McDonald's was aware of previous injuries from hot coffee injuries, and had not properly warned the consumers, the court awarded Liebeck $640,000 in damages, which was later settled for an undisclosed amount.