The media plays a crucial and critical role in influencing people’s perceptions about different aspects of the society. In contemporary societies, the media have become important elements of people day-to-day activities (Bradburn, 2001). Furthermore, the media can influence people’s impressions about an event in many ways. As people use different media forms such as new papers, social media, and Televisions, they develop particular impressions or expectations regarding easy communication and accessible information. Most people rely on the media for information regarding different events across the globe (Bradburn, 2001). As a result, people think negatively about an event that the media portrays negatively and positively about an event that the media portrays positively. Furthermore, the media can overhype a situation, thereby creating unnecessary public pressure. For example, media covered the MacDonald’s coffee case in a biased manner to favour the corporate world against trial lawyers (Bradburn, 2001).
In regards to the case, radio, newspapers, and televisions played the role of informing people about the extent of the plaintiff’s burns as well as the similar cases of negligence that MacDonald’s had ignored. The media created an impression that McDonalds served coffee that was not only hot, but also scalding and capable of destroying the flesh, skin, and muscles. Furthermore, the images of Stella Liebeck’s burns created an impression that McDonald’s coffee was actually dangerous (Bradburn, 2001).
In reading the facts of the case, what do you think influenced the jury and in your opinion, did they get it right?
While examining the facts of the MacDonald’s coffee case, some of the factors that I think influenced the jury include the fact that MacDonald’s had numerous complaints from their customers regarding the temperatures of the coffee, but the corporation ignored most of them. Furthermore, the injuries that the plaintiff suffered were extremely horrendous to look at. Finally, the coffee was extremely hot (Bradburn, 2001). MacDonald’s could not argue that the coffee was not hot enough to cause the scalds or burns that the plaintiff suffered. Based on the three factors, the jury lost its mind and responded with punitive damages that were immensely disproportionate to the common sense that informed the case. Specifically, they wanted to punish the corporation (Bradburn, 2001).
If you were an expert consultant in brand management, how would you advise McDonald’s to handle the case differently?
If I were an expert consultant in brand management, I would have advised McDonald’s to opt for an out-of-court settlement instead of going through the court case that ended up diminishing its brand and image. Specifically, the civil case depicted MacDonald’s as a negligent corporation that ignored the concerns of its customers (Bradburn, 2001).
Do you think the tort system “works” in the United States, support your opinion with a logical argument?
No, I think that the tort system does not work in the United States. Specifically, the tort system seeks to redress the injustices or wrongs done to individuals, usually by granting them damages to compensate for the injuries or losses they incur. The U.S. tort system attempts to achieve numerous things, but it does most of them in an ineffective way (Arlen, 2015). For example, most of the injured individuals are either not compensated at all or overcompensated. Furthermore, the amounts that U.S. courts award for the pain and injuries that people suffer are far much below the damages that other established or developed nations provide (Arlen, 2015).
The U.S. tort system does not work because of the relatively high transaction costs that people require to initiate a suit and follow up their case through the system. As a result, most individuals that have suffered losses or injuries avoid initiating tort claims because they fear that they might be left bankrupt if they do not win the cases. In this regard, adequate tort reforms should be implemented to ensure that all citizens can file for damages successfully (Arlen, 2015).
Furthermore, the American tort system has gradually evolved into a racketeering system instead of a legitimate means of compensating individuals for the losses or injuries that they incur. Even though most Americans would firmly indicate that the U.S. has the most equitable system, other nations operate equitable systems that are relatively affordable (Arlen, 2015). Additionally, the U.S. tort system does not work because it provides for trials by jury in civil cases. The use of juries is inappropriate because there is always a possibility that the jury can be swayed by emotions, instead of facts, thereby leading to unwarranted and irrational judgements (Arlen, 2015).
Finally, the U.S., unlike other nations, permits the attorneys to collect a substantial portion of the damages compensation whenever they win a case. As a result, the “contingency fee” structure encourages litigation and perpetuates legal blackmail. Furthermore, the settlement also reduces the possibility that some jury might reach an outrageous verdict. Even though contingency fees exist in most nations, they are excessive in the United States. In other nations, substantial compensation costs are often awarded to the prevailing party; however, that is not usually the case in the United States (Arlen, 2015).
References
Arlen, J. (2015). Research Handbook on the Economics of Torts. New York: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Bradburn, Roger (2001). Understanding business ethics. New York: Cengage Learning
