Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment: Torts and Products Liability
In 1994, there was a widely publicized lawsuit against the McDonald’s Corporation in which an elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, sued McDonald’s for damages from the third-degree burns she sustained from hot McDonald’s coffee that she spilled on her lap while she was seated in her car. The case received so much publicity that it is frequently referred to today as an example of a “frivolous lawsuit” that hurts American business. Indeed, the “Stella Award” for frivolous lawsuits referred to in the article "The Mighty Quinn" was named after Stella Liebeck.
In 2007, Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for several million dollars of damages resulting from a lost pair of trousers.
Research these two cases, and in 10-12 double-spaced pages compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits by answering the following questions. Include an introduction and a conclusion in your paper.
1. What are the facts?
2. What are the issues?
3. What law applies?
4. What did the judge and/or jury decide?
5. Did the judge and/or jury make an appropriate decision based on the applicable law controlling the case? Why or why not?
6. What are the ethical issues in the cases? Do the ethical issues differ from the legal issues? If so, how?
7. Both of these cases have been described as "frivolous" lawsuits. Based on your research what do you think? Is either one or both of these cases frivolous?
8. Regardless of what you think of the lawsuits, how could the business owners have prevented them? What advice can you give them for the future?
Be sure to provide references for all information, including facts that you obtain from your research.
Assignment Rubric
Grading Criteria - Individual Assignment
Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment: Torts and Products Liability
Objective 1: Apply models of critical thinking and systems thinking to address complex organizational issues.
Objective 4: Analyze the link between ethics and organizational effectiveness
Objective 5: Apply legal concepts in the business environment to managerial decision-making and implementation
Competencies: Critical Thinking, Information Literacy/Research Skills, Communication Skills
Assignment: Research the McDonald's and Pearson cases, and in 10-12 double-spaced pages compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits by answering the following questions. Include an introduction and conclusion in your paper.
Criteria | Exceeds Expectations | Meets Expectations | Below Expectations |
Assignment Questions |
|
|
|
1. What are the facts? | Clearly identifies and explains a majority of the relevant Facts in each case. | Generally correct in identification of the relevant Facts, but includes some inaccuracy and/or does not explain adequately. | Does not correctly identify the relevant Facts. Important facts are missing and/or there are an unacceptable number of inaccuracies. |
2. What are the issues? | Clearly identifies and succinctly summarizes all major issues of the cases. | Identifies some of the major issues, but includes items that are not issues and/or fails to identify major issues. | Does not identify major issues. |
3. What law applies? | Identifies and demonstrates excellent understanding of the Applicable Law(s) in each case. | Demonstrates general understanding of Applicable Law(s) but there are some inaccuracies and/or does not offer adequate explanation. | Does not demonstrate adequate understanding of the Applicable Law(s). Many omissions and/or inaccuracies. |
4. What did the judge and/or jury decide | Identifies and clearly explains what the judge or jury decided in each case. | Identifies some of the judge’s or jury's findings but includes some inaccuracies. | Does not adequately identify the judge or jury’s findings. Many omissions and/or inaccuracies. |
5. Did the judge and/or jury make an appropriate decision?
Why or why not? | Demonstrates solid understanding of how the law was or could be applied in each case and clearly explains his/her reasoning. | Demonstrates some understanding of how to apply the law to each case but contains omissions and/or inaccuracies and/or does not offer adequate explanation. | Does not demonstrate understanding of how to apply the law with respect to the judge’s or jury’s decision. Many omissions and/or inaccuracies. |
6. What are the ethical issues in the cases? Do the ethical issues differ from the legal issues? If so, how? | Demonstrates solid understanding of the ethical issues in the cases and provides a convincing, well reasoned discussion, using support from the readings. | Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of the ethical issues in the cases and presents a good discussion with sufficient support from the readings. | Does not demonstrate understanding of the ethical issues in the case. |
7. Both of these cases have been described as "frivolous" lawsuits. Based on your research, what do you think? Are both cases frivolous, one, or neither? | Presents a convincing argument based a comparison of the cases that demonstrates solid understanding of the facts and law relevant in each case. | Presents a satisfactory comparison based the facts and law of the case. There may be some misunderstanding or unsupported assumptions, but argument is generally sound. | Does not present a satisfactory comparison of the two cases. Discussion is not supported by facts and law. |
8. Regardless of what you think of the lawsuits, how could the business owners have prevented them? What advice can you give them in the future? | Provides specific advice for the business owners based on a realistic risk assesssment and supports suggestions with facts and law. | Provides some good advice and provides adequate support for suggestions. | Does not provide adequate or specific advice. Suggestions are not based on realistic assessment of risks and are not supported by facts and law. |
Research and Critical Thinking |
|
|
|
Chooses credible sources and evaluates information critically | Information and sources are up-to-date, very reliable, credible, and unbiased. Expert sources have been used. | Information and sources are somewhat up-to-date, reliable, credible, and unbiased. Some questionable sources may be used, but these sources are not relied upon exclusively. | Information and sources are not reliable, credible, are heavily biased and/or out-dated. Research is sparse and insufficient. |
Critical Analysis | There is a clear and consistent treatment of the topics that includes critical analysis, not merely reporting or describing ideas, and a thorough evaluation of the topics/issues. Assesses the merits of ideas critically and evaluates the value of divergent perspectives.
| Applies a satisfactory level of critical analysis. | Does not apply a satisfactory level of critical analysis. Paper is largely descriptive rather than analytical. |
Well reasoned argument
|
Assumptions, beliefs and personal biases are identified; terms are defined. Assertions are supported by ample evidence and relevant examples. Statements and assertions logically follow from each other, thereby avoiding 1) unfounded and insupportable generalizations, 2) considering only favorable evidences, and 3) considering only two alternatives and ignoring others that are equally relevant. |
Arguments are generally well supported, but some reasoning errors. |
Arguments are not well supported. |
Content Grade: (possible 80 points) | 72-80 | 71-64 | 63 and under |
Your Content Grade |
|
|
|
Organization | Paper is clearly organized and contains an introduction, a body, and an effective conclusion. Paragraphs and transitions flow smoothly. Page limitations are met. | Organization is generally good, but some missing parts and/or poor transitions and/or paragraph structure. Paper does not go over 10% of the page limit requirements. | Paper is not well organized: missing and/or poorly written parts, poor paragraph structure and transitions. Paper goes over page limit requirements by more than 10%. |
Mechanics | Graduate level writing is reflected throughout the paper, including accurate spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence structure. Citations are properly used (APA format) and all sources are identified and cited properly in the text and the reference list. | Writing is acceptable, a few errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and/or sentence structure, and/or minor errors in citation identification and/or format. | Writing does not meet graduate standards. Unacceptable number of errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and/or citation format. |
Form Grade: (possible 20 points) | 18-20 | 16-17 | 15 and under |
Your Form Grade |
|
|
|
Total Grade |
|
|
|
Comments:
9 years ago
Purchase the answer to view it
critical_thinking_in_the_legal_environment-__torts_and_products_liability.docx
