6.1: One of the reasons this case might have gotten so much coverage is that we are considered a litigicious society and this case might have been used as a good example of just that. Without the knowledge of the severity of the injuries this case sounds like a minor issue in which the complainant is focusing on small details regarding guidelines on how to handle coffee and seemingly attempting to extort money from a large corporation. This might be one reason why it was extensively covered by the media.

As a juror, I would have ruled in favor or Liebeck as the mere possibility of getting such injuries from a cup of coffee is preposterous, especially after knowing that McDonald’s already was aware of the issue with their coffees from numerous previous complaints.

6.2: As a “special master” I would have used the Feinberg formula to calculate the compensation. While one cannot place value on human life, this formula gives room for consideration of those who have remained living (dependent children for example). This compensation was used as a way to shield the airlines as well for they do have liability for safety of passengers. The Oklahoma City bombing and other terrorist acts might not qualify under the same category considering that they happened on public property where there is no guarantee of safety and no contractual obligation to provide safety.

6.3: I do agree that students should be provided with an informal hearing prior to being suspended. Education is a right that children are given and as such should not be interfered with so easily. If there is no procedure to be followed prior to suspension then arguably many officials can abuse the practice and unjustly jeopardize students’ educations.