Respond to this post in 150 words or more agreeing, disagreeing, or giving an opinion.

I remember hearing about this case as a young child and in listening to the media I remember thinking that it was completely ridiculous. Even to this very day, I thought it was a mere common sense that coffee would be hot and to use care. Up until I read this case today I was very ignorant about the whole case and Stella's side of it and honestly see it much more differently now.

Discussion Question 2: In serving such hot coffee, did McDonald’s act in a morally responsible way? What ideals, obligations, and effects should it have

taken into consideration? I wholeheartedly believe McDonald's did not act in a morally responsible

way. Initially, I feel they insulted Stella by only offering $800.00 to her. It was their responsibility to address the

situation and ensure that they took responsibility in the handling of their product. It took an attorney to get involved before they took the case seriously. When I think of McDonald's I think of all the charities that they participate in and would have never thought they would have acted so inhumanely on such an issue. For the lawyers to address the issue by saying that the coffee was not unreasonably hot even

though it was served hotter than home-brewed coffee seemed downright outrageous

to me. One of the ideals, obligations, and effects McDonald's could have taken into consideration was the numerous cases before Stella’s advising there were injuries due to the coffee being too

hot. McDonald's was fully aware but did not take any steps in rectifying the issue which to me seems like neglect. Understandably as well if the coffee was hot enough to

cause third-degree burns wouldn’t it be the responsibility to make changes right away instead of debating the issue?

Discussion Question 1: Is hot coffee so dangerous, as the jury thought? Should a reasonable consumer be expected to know that coffee can burn and to have assumed this risk? Is a warning label sufficient? Is our society too protective of consumers these days, or not protective enough? I absolutely feel that the coffee was as dangerous as the jury thought. To cause third-degree burns within fifteen seconds indicated the temperature was excessive. It also took providing photos of the injury to make the jury understand the severity of the situation. I believe it is common sense for a consumer to know that coffee is hot, however, the temperature was deemed excessive which posed a risk to consumers and other consumers were injured in the past as a result. I think in addition to the warning label McDonald's should have lowered the temperature. Yes, labels are needed however, corporations need to take additional steps to ensure consumers safety. I do not feel as if our society is protective enough of consumers just based on the sheer number of lawsuits and injuries. Even according to the text products and services are not regulated enough. In addition, every year millions of Americans require medical treatment due to product-related incidents which is something that can be easily avoided.