One of the most famous lawsuits against a corporation is Liebeck vs. McDonald’s Restaurants. In 1994, Stella Liebeck was hospitalized for burns and other wounds after spilling McDonald’s coffee on herself. A jury later awarded Ms. Liebeck close to $3 million. This lawsuit was the subject of much media coverage at the time, and was the focus of a least one documentary on tort law. While, at first glance, this may seem like a ridiculous award for spilling coffee on yourself, keep in mind that Ms. Liebeck was 79 years old at the time and required extensive medical procedures for her injuries. Additionally, the judge later reduced the reward to $640,000. Try to find another example of a large award in a lawsuit that received a lot of media attention and seems, at least on the surface, either ridiculous or excessive (let’s try to liven up the discussion with some extreme examples). Make sure at least one of the parties in the lawsuit is a business. Discuss why you think this award received a lot of media attention and if you think this award seems unusually large or unusual for the tort in question. Then, explain what concepts from the background materials were illustrated by this case. Cite the Pearson tutorial on business torts in your answer. Please cite using this website http://www.pearsoncustom.com/mct-comprehensive/asset.php?isbn=1269879944&id=11957

Lawsuit

In the year 2000 Mr. Granzinski filed a law suit against Winnebago Company for insufficient advice in their handbook concerning effects of setting the car on cruise control. Mr. Grazinski had just purchased a new Winnebago motor and on his first ride home he left the car after joining the freeway. The owner set the car’s cruise control at 70 meter per hour and went to prepare himself a coffee at the back.  Due to the motor home cruise control that had been set at 70 mph the car departed the freeway and went ahead to crush and overturn a couple of times. Mr. Granzinski was awarded $1,750,000 by the New Mexico jury that the car company had to pay together with a new Winnebago (Hill 2009)

This award was considered to be a large award. This is because together with the amount in question, he was also given a new motor home. Winnebago paying the award and giving him a new motor home was a double payment. Winnebago incurred unplanned for compensations that increased their expenses. The tort that the company committed was unintentional but was due to negligent as they were not aware that the owner would set the cruise control and leave it on the freeway. They had no intention of harming their customers by missing the advice in the handbook. 

Negligence was observed as the car was damaged and the company breached its duty of providing all related information. There was proximate cause, because the car company designed the car and did all testing together with all related elements. It was Winnebago legal duty to show care of their customer by providing all information and advice necessary. Mr. Grazinski was not informed about the motorhome manually operation at any given time which led to the owner setting its cruise control at 70 mph. 

References

http://www.pearsoncustom.com/mct-comprehensive/asset.php?isbn=1269879944&id=11957

Hill, K. D. (2009). Popular Delusions & (and) the Law in the Age of the Internet-A Review of 

Damian Thompson’s Counter knowledge. Ohio NUL Rev., 35, 801.