McDonald's Coffee Too Hot

Roughly 10 years ago a court case was introduced to sue McDonald's Corporation for knowingly selling defective products. The particulars of the case involved a woman spilling hot coffee on her-self and being injured very badly because of it. Public opinion was (and largely still is) strongly against the woman and her settlement. Her stepson wrote an article to argue that she was justified in receiving a settlement due to the defective nature of the product being sold. The claim being presented and advanced is the system worked; McDonald's knowingly and callously sold defective products and was rightfully forced to pay compensation. The author effectively employs many of the tools and concepts central to making a good argument. In evaluating the argument being put forth one must first take into account the credibility of the author. The types of evidence and the kinds of arguments used may then be evaluated. Overall the author does a good job of tying the different elements together to produce a well formed argument.

The issue of credibility is very important to the author's argument. Initially, the credibility of the author must be examined. The only cues one has to evaluate the author's credibility are those relating to his competence. Being the stepson of the victim, he is knowledgeable of the situation and the people involved. He also seems credible from his message elements; he has good usage of grammar and vocabulary.

The author uses all three types of evidence to support his argument. The evidence to support the authors claim is restatements of evidence used in the court case against McDonald's. They are some of the same pieces of evidence the jury heard. Evidence by example is found in the story of his mother in law, Stella. She was injured by McDonald's coffee being so hot it hospitalized her when spilled on her lap. Statistics are utilized as well: "The corporation had a list of more than 700 burn cases". On the other side, McDonald's presented a statistician who stated the burn cases were "statistically insignificant". The author most likely included this seemingly pro McDonald's statement to show the heartlessness of big corporations; to make people feel like they treat the consumer as merely figures of cost versus profit. Testimony is the third type of evidence implemented. Both the examples of evidence by statistics came from testimony by individuals. It is also mentioned that both sides had testimony from experts in skin burns and burn care. There are no credentials given in the article to show the credibility of the witnesses. However, most judges would not allow a person to testify as an expert without some credentials to show. Even if the judge allowed it, the lawyers would not put someone on the stand without proper credentials out of fear they may loose their credibility. The one aspect of the testimonies that could fall under suspicion is the issue of bias. Expert witnesses are usually paid to make their statements in court. One could easily be tempted to bend the truth in order to make sure they get the point across that the lawyers employing them want to be made. The lawyers will undoubtedly rehire an expert witness who makes all the right points for their side; the expert witnesses must also be aware of this. The witnesses being under oath, combined with the corroboration from other witnesses (on both sides) helps one believe the expert testimony in this case. Corroboration is important to these testimonies since the experts for McDonald's verified what the expert witnesses for the other side said. Jurors often weigh reluctant evidence very heavily. It probably would have been better for McDonald's to stipulate this information ahead of time so their expert witnesses could not be seen as giving reluctant evidence against their case. The author does a very good job of using the three types of evidence together to support his argument.

The author employs a variety of argument types as well in order to get his point across. The only type of argument the author does not use is analogy. Showing a series of like instances constitutes generalization. The over 700 burn cases alluded to and the statement that the prosecuting attorney "questioned this same manÐ'... before for a client with a similar severe burn" help to show a series of like instances, or generalization. The author also uses causal elements, presenting the argument from cause to effect. The primary cause and effect relationship in this argument is that she was injured by a defective product, this is the cause. The effect is that she deserves compensation. To arrive at this cause and effect relationship, many other causes and effects had to occur and be recognized as valid. For instance, if the coffee was not so hot (cause), she would not have been burned (effect). If one were to reject the claim that the coffee was too hot, these cause and effect relationships would not hold true for them. That is why the author devotes so much space to showing that the temperature of the coffee was