SYAM SANKAR SAKTHIDHARAN

Business Ethics Assignment- 4 ID NO 201005002

Page 323

When has a company’s action caused injuries to its customers?

 What facts would you want to know before deciding this case?

a. Employee violating the company policy by helping the passenger to get into the train
while train is moving
b. And another fault from passenger point of view, they should not carry fireworks in the
train.
c. Don’t stand so near when train is in motion.
d. Negligence by the company in the awareness of railway rules.

In my opinion, answers should be given in the form of questions, not positive point (all the yellow words
are comments)

 What alternatives would a jury face in deciding this case?

I. Jury should have a study on the negligence of company’s safety and regulations for the
passengers in the railway station during the accident/ injury.
Good point
II. The employees those who don’t follow the railway rules and helps passengers to get
into the train while train is in motion should be tracked. Their negligence should be
recognized.
So negligence shown by these people made the situation worse. So the jury has to think
about it before making a decision and have to think why it happened.

 Who are the stake holders of your decision? What is the impact of each alternative decision on
each stakeholder you have identified?
 I. The Stake Holders: Passenger, Insurance Company, future passengers, other
passengers, Lawyer’s.
What about employees and Train Company
II. The negligence of other passenger like her, lead to his injury. But if she is insured, she
will get reimbursement for her treatment. The insurance company will have their stake
in this situation.
The negligence of the company is the unhealthy infrastructure and for not having
proper prevention for such accidents, this will lose their reputation.
The negligence of the employer may lead in losing his job.
Future passengers will get benefited by having a better and safe journey from the
consequences of this incidence.

Good answers

 What rights and duties are involved?

i. Rights

a. Company should provide with safe infra structure and service.

b. Passengers have the duties to observe the companies rights and regulations
c. Company should aware the passengers about safety and regulations.
Providing safe infrastructure is a good point, but should we mention it in the case? It seems not
relate with the case

ii. Duties

a. No passengers should stand around moving train.

b. Follow all railway rules and be an ideal citizen and be a good example for others too.

 How would you decide the case? Is it mostly a matter of consequences? Or any important
principles involved?
Yes, I would say it is a matter of consequences. Because this incident was a result of negligence
of multiple people involved. I feel that deontological principle and utilitarianism have to be
considered. Helen Palgraf deserves her compensation considering unethical activities of other
passenger, employees and the company.
Page 324

Liability for spilt coffee? A double latte.

 What facts would you want to know before deciding whether this settlement was fair?

Before taking decision, it is really important to analyze the negligence of both the parties.

I. McDonald’s should not have given 185degree hot coffee when it is a window service. If
so, they should have informed the customer about the status of the coffee before
delivery.
II. Customer must be aware of the hot coffee present in the cup and she should have that
sense, she is holding hot coffee.
And in my point of view it’s not total fault of Mc Donald

 What alternatives would a jury face in deciding this case?

I. The alternatives the jury would have to face are whether Mc Donald’s anticipated what
the possible duty is. Mc Donald’s had any safety precautions or instructions while
serving such as giving printed glasses which mention hot coffee. If not, then it will be
easier to judge their fault in the incident.
II. If it was already printed and customers didn’t paid attention on precautions then
customers are most responsible for its own injury.

 What are the consequences of the jury’s decision?

I. The consequences of the jury’s decision are that, it may have halt Mc Donald
serving coffee to customers and loss of reputation.
II. It should print some safety precautions on the container
III. They should serve coffee with safety measures without spilling out from the cup
which harms or injures.
IV. Mc Donald’s have to hire well trained employees who are capable of handling
such type of incidents in.
 The fourth point is interesting but I don't think employees can handle such type
of incidents, because the fundamental problem is not on employees.

 What rights and duties are involved?

a. Rights:
i. Customers’ point of view Mc Donald should provide with safe service.
b. Duties:

ii. Customers have the duties to observe Mc Donald safety and precautions on label
iii. Customers should not walk or drive the car while holding the hot coffee

Page 324 2nd

Liability for spilt coffee? A double latte.

 Do you see a distinction between these two cases?

1. Yes, even if the two cases seem very similar in each other, the second case sounds more
co-incidental and unfortunate than the first incident. First incident was due to pure
negligence in the serving through window. They should have taken enough care on that
situation when compared with the Starbuck’s incident.
2. The first incident happened after the delivery of the product and second incident
happen before the delivery. McDonald didn’t deny their mistake but the Starbuck’s did
so.
The main distinction I think is the reason for the incident, for the first case, McDonald’s
negligence, but for the second one the employee should be trained more.
 Is there any difference between the responsibility McDonald’s owes the woman in the first
instance and the responsibility Starbucks owes the woman in the second situation, as described
above?
It is really hard to compensate someone with money for any health related
consequences/accidents; the McDonald woman owes her compensation with all her
rights as she had no other option while it was happening. It was purely McDonald’s
 mistake. But in the Starbuck’s coffee incident, it is important to take witness reports and
study the circumstances of the woman and the server. So I feel that the first incident
will have more importance in the compensation than the second incident.
Interesting answers
 Are the principles involved in the two cases any different?
The principles of both the incident are different. Only the real time reports and situation
study will make us give a better decision. So I feel that, utilitarianism principle will be
more suitable in for the second case and deontological principle for the first one.

 Will the decisions in the two cases lead to different consequences?

a. Yes, the decision will have different impact on the two cases. The first incident will teach
a good lesson for McDonalds and their employees. They will understand the importance
of having good infrastructure to prevent accidents and taking precautions/preventions
for avoiding such incidents.
b. Starbuck’s will have to give importance of training their staff and implementing that for
future in preventing from these incidents.

Page 325

Foreseeing and designing for product misuse; can a manufacturer held liable when a product was
misused

 What facts would you want to know before deciding these cases?

a. First, it is important to go through the company’s product manual and instructions,

where it should be explained about its handling techniques, precautions to be taken
before use and maximum weight accommodation for the product. If these factors are
satisfying the situation, we have to conclude that the mistake was with consumer.
b. If the company has the problem in negligence of detailing the required in the
instruction manual, then it will be in trouble.
c. And basically it is the consumer’s responsibility to keep their baby away from such
dangerous instruments. That is a common nature everywhere in the world.
So it is important to see these factors before doing a decision making.
 Where was the child’s mother when the incident happened?
 What alternatives would a jury face in deciding this case?

a. I think, the negligence of the mother in taking care of the baby will have an important
role in the decision making.
b. The company’s flaws in the instructing the consumers about the use of the product will
have an importance in the decision

 Who are the stake holders of your decision? What is the impact of each alternative decision on
each stakeholder you have identified?
 Manufacturer, young child and her mother, insurance company, lawyers etc. are the stake
holders for this decision.
What about the company, competitors, even media?
Consumer, the young child and her mother will not be justified for their negligence in
handling the instrument. The young child will learn from this incident and her mother
will also have a good lesson in her life to take care her child when handling these
dangerous instruments. Manufacturer will have their chance to correct themselves and
implement new preventive method to avoid such incident from then. They have not
provided with the instructions they will have to pay the compensation even if it is not
their direct mistake, but foreseeing the future mistakes.
 What rights and duties are involved?

1. Rights

i. The consumer have their right to use safer instrument if they money for that.
ii. They have the rights to receive the instructions which contain precautions before using.
iii. They have the rights to question and sue the company if anything goes wrong from
these.

2. Duties

i. Consumer has the duty to follow all the instructions before using the instrument.
 ii. They have the duty to make other ignorant if they don’t know the handling methods and
its precautions.

 How would you decide the case? Is it mostly a matter of consequences? Or any important
principles involved?

 It is not so important to look for the cause of the incident. It will be completely partial to give a
decision against the manufacturer before going through the basic factors and its detail study,
whether it was properly followed. And also this incident is not a chain of consequences. So I
think the decision may be based on a virtue ethics. It should see the moral part of the incident.

In my opinion, whether company has written something like “kids please keep away from it” is
the important, company should have foreseen that it is possible to hurt kids however they use
it. If company did not written, maybe company will hold most responsibility.