The law of negligence

The law of negligence

The law of negligence gives a plaintiff the liberty to sue the defendants if the harm caused is either by accident or reckless behaviours. Four elements must be established to establish negligence. These are

Duty-this is what a company is required by law to fulfil when serving the customers.

Breach-breach is acting contrary to the duty. When a defendant breaches the duty, he can be sued for negligence.

Cause- the cause is the harm posed to a complainant due to breach of duty.

Harm-harm is when a plaintiff suffers serious consequences; hence he is legible to sue for negligence.

In respect to MacDonald’s case; Liebeck proved the four elements hence legible to sue the company. MacDonald’s company must sell coffee with temperature, not more than 130 degrees. However, the company sold the coffee to Liebeck with temperatures of 180 to 190 degree without informing her, therefore, breaching this law. The coffee split on Liebeck, which caused third-degree burns and the burns were a result of MacDonald’s breaching is a duty. The split posed severe harm on her health as she was rendered disabled for two years with a huge hospital bill; therefore, eligible to sue for negligence.

MacDonald’s case had violated the law of negligence. However, in comparison to Starbucks case, the officer was unable to prove MacDonald’s had violated any of the four elements. Starbucks argued they served the coffee the way they are obligated to, and it was a good cup of coffee. The officer was unable to connect the dot between the cause and effect relationship to hold Starbucks liable hence the company was not negligent.

In my opinion, the two MacDonald’s case was fair since the client deserved to be sued. However, in Starbucks case, I feel the officer was supposed to be compensated since the lid was faulty, and it caused the coffee to split, causing harm to the officer. The four elements restricted the officer from getting the justice he deserved.