Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Also known as the "McDonald's coffee case", Liebeck v. McDonald's is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flash point in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who sued McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns from hot ...
Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912.She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
A PETA activist dressed as a chicken confronts the manager of the Times Square McDonald's over the company's animal welfare standards.. The American restaurant chain McDonald's has been criticised for numerous aspects of its business, including the health effects of its products, its treatment of employees, the environmental impact of its operations, and other business practices.
All pages with titles beginning with McDonald; All pages with titles beginning with M'Donald; All pages with titles beginning with Madonald; MCD (disambiguation) Donald (disambiguation) Clan Donald; McDonald v. Chicago, a U.S. Supreme Court case that incorporated the U.S. Constitution's second amendment against the U.S. states
In the name of research and journalism, I just had to go into a McDonald's and try the Mighty Wings. Walking in with already low expectations, there was a chance of a pleasant surprise. While it's ...
(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, a decision from the EU's Spain ...
McDonald's has now become commonplace as a go-to for late night food (especially with the launch of an all-day breakfast menu last year). But in the 80s, the company needed a way to bring people ...
Almost all of London Greenpeace's resources and efforts went to helping the pair over the years the case was heard, but in 1997 both defendants lost and were ordered to pay McDonald's £60,000. However, the extended court battle was a public relations failure for McDonald's; the company decided not to pursue the two defendants for the money.