Having viewed the chapter on the McDonald's case what do you think about the concept of holding any company or entity providing dangerous products responsible even when the product inherently may have some component that if not used properly will cause some harm to a customer? Coffee has traditionally been hot, and many want the temperature to be high enough to withstand that long commute to work in heavy traffic. similarly, discuss your opinion of the jury decision. You saw what at least two of the juror thought and how each reached its decision. Does the fact that McDonald's already known of the potential harm and did not correct the problem make it easier to punish McDonald's for its actions? What about that many, and maybe a majority of persons, want their coffee to be exceedingly hot for whatever reason. What about the media's response and the distorted information put into commerce by the business and political establishment. What are your concerns or questions, about the plaintiff's actions in handling the hot product, and did her actions merit the comparative reduction in the damage award. What did you think about the court reducing the award while finding that McDonald had acted willfully and with wanton disregard for its customer's safety?