Please view the following video about the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's and read "'In Incognito'-The Principle of Double Effect in American Constitutional Law" located in the "Files" section of Blackboard.
Please give your reactions to the video and answer the following questions.
1.) Was it proper for the jury to grant punitive damages in this case? Should McDonald's have been made to pay the entire amount? Given what you read in the article about the "ends never justifying the means," how does the principle of double effect apply to McDonald's business decision toward customers?
2.) Are punitive damages a deterrent to companies who manufacture defective products that cause injury? Should there be a cap on punitive damages one can receive? If so, what should be reasonable and will a cap still prevent companies from manufacturing defective products that injure people?