The McDonald's and Manley cases both arise from a familiar setting: a fast food meal. In the first case, a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap; in the second, a man found part of a plastic spoon in his lung. The cases have some similar backgrounds, yet the outcomes are very different. Moreover, one case received extensive media attention , while the other has slipped by with virtually no public notice. Why are cases with similar backgrounds decided differently? In other words, what are the factors that lead to different outcomes? As an example of one factor, there are differences in how the parties made arguments about the facts. In the McDonald's case, the company did not dispute that the plaintiff's injuries happened immediately after she purchased ,coffee at the restaurant; whereas in Manley, the company refused to acknowledge a link between its products and the plaintiff's condition. There are numerous other differentiating factors beyond this obvious factual comparison. 

Compare and contrast the two cases, describing at least three differences that might explain why the courts reached different conclusions. Consider not only the - facts of the cases but also the different legal procedures involved

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The McDonalds hot coffee case and the Manley plastic spoon case both involve injuries stemming from fastfood meals but they differ in several aspects ... View the full answer