The mcdonalds coffee case is still one of the most controversial tort cases in recent history. some felt that the woman should have known that hot coffee posed a risk, while others agreed that mcdonalds should have prevented the injury. what do you think? was ms. liebeck more responsible for her injury than the original court decided?

I don't believe she was responsible for any of this because McDonald as a huge business should have taken extra precautions on how they serve their coffee to the old lady especially provided that old people can have issues where their body limbs may just shake for no reason and the coffee should have not been this hot that the old lady had to suffer such injury as if someone was burning her on purpose.

they can increase to boost the enonomy.

answer; blank(1); visual design; blank(2); words;