Facts, Law, and Merits of the Two Lawsuits: McDonalds and Pearson - Research Paper Example

? Facts, Law, and Merits of the Two Law Suits A frivolous lawsuit infers a lawsuit lacking justification and without merit, and hence has no business in the courts. Merriam-Webster describes “frivolous” as something that bears no sound foundation (in fact or law), or a legal claim resulting in damages that significantly exceed expectations grounded in the facts of the case. For any lawsuit to be regarded as a frivolous under the law, the legal basis for such a suit is regarded as absent. Some people suppose that a frivolous lawsuit denotes a silly lawsuit. For instance, Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners cases have been regarded as frivolous since they may seem silly. Overall, however, a frivolous lawsuit, in the eyes of the legal system, delineates something more specific. Although, some lawsuits may appear silly, this does not necessarily translate to the notion that the lawsuits lack legal merit. The paper explores the merit of two cases: Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants; Roy L. Pearson, Jr. (plaintiff) v. Soo Chung, et al. Facts, Law, and Merits of the Two Law Suits Introduction In the case, Ms. Liebeck (the plaintiff) filed a complaint against McDonald’s (the defendant) alleging negligence. Stella Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew’s car, which was pulled over so that she could have a chance to add sugar to her coffee. First, the spilled coffee gave her third degree burns in more than six percent of her body (Cain, 2007). Secondly, she claimed that the coffee was served at an uncomfortable temperature (180-190 degree Fahrenheit) that can give individual third - degree burns (in 2-7 seconds). The second case, Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al., has its grounding in a dispute between the plaintiff, Roy Pearson and the defendants, Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung, over a pair of supposedly missing pants. The plaintiff alleged that he took his pants to Custom Cleaners for alterations in May 2005; however, the defendants lost his pants and they attempted to replace it with another pair of pants for his (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). Mr. Pearson also alleged that a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign displayed in Custom Cleaners was in effect an unconditional warranty that demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to honor any claim advanced by any customer. #1 What are the Facts? Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck in the company of her son Jim and her grandson Chris Tiano drove to Albuquerque airport to drop off Jim who needed to catch an early flight. After leaving the airport, the pair grabbed some breakfast at MacDonald’s. Stella Liebeck was not driving the car when she lifted the lid of the cup. At the time, her grandson reportedly pulled over to stop so that Stella could put sugar and cream to the coffee that she had purchased. The plaintiff placed the coffee between her knees so as to keep it secured as she proceeded to remove the lid. Unfortunately, the hot coffee spilled in her lap and the liquid absorbed into her cotton sweat pants, which in turn held the scalding liquid against the body burning her badly (more than six percent of her skin) (Cain, 2007). The burns sustained required an eight day hospital stay and skin grafting. As a result, the plaintiff required close to two years of therapy and rehabilitation to treat the third degree burns. The 79 year-old Liebeck sustained burns in her buttocks, inner thighs, and genital areas inclusive of her left groin. McDonald’s declined a proposal for an out of court settlement for $20,000 in medical costs. The medical costs amounted to $11,000, but McDonald’s offered the plaintiff only $800 (Miller & Cross, 2010). Amid the trial, McDonald’s quality control manager’s ascertained that their coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Overall, liquids at that temperature can inflict third-degree burns in a period of 2-7seconds. Statistics indicated that for a period of one decade (from 1982 to 1992), McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, out of which the company had settled claims amounting to $500,000 for burning incidents (Cain, 2007). McDonald’s also acknowledged that it failed to warn consumers of this risk, could not avail explanations as to why it failed to do so, and confirmed that it did not have any intent to minimize the heat despite admitting that the served coffee was indeed “unfit for consumption” since it is excessively hot. Pearson (plaintiff) v. Soo Chung, et al. (defendant) In July2002, Mr. Pearson presented a pair of pants to Custom Cleaners, although he could not recall whether for cleaning or alteration, but the pants were missing the day he went to pick them up. At the time of collection, Jai Chung attended to Mr. Pearson. The plaintiff originally made a proposal of which he informed the defendant that the lost pants would require $150 to replace, and they both agreed that Custom Cleaners would compensate him as per the agreed value (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). Upon return a few days later, and despite the fact that Jai Chung countered that the compensation should be around $80 as the pants were not new, the plaintiff maintained that they had agreed $150 compensation. Mr. Pearson confirmed that, about a week after he received compensation for the lost pants in 2002, he presented some clothes into Custom Cleaners, but Soo Chung informed him that her family had decided to sever ties with him and would no longer accept his business. Mr. Pearson then advised her that he considered it unlawful for Custom Cleaners to severe business ties with him as espoused by the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign. According to the plaintiff, he attempted to clarify that despite the fact that the defendants could elect not to undertake business with someone, they could not legitimately do so is their action was pursued subsequent to a client complaint of which had been adequately satisfied (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). The plaintiff asserted that the defendants’ action was unfair trade practice as outlined by the CPPA since they were introducing a fresh standard after-the-fact to the present guarantee of satisfaction. The plaintiff continued to patronize Custom Cleaners devoid of further incident, for close to three years. In the beginning of mid-April 2005, the plaintiff visited the store and presented two pairs of suit pants to be altered, plus another pair a few days later. The plaintiff presented the final pair of suit pants to Custom Cleaners to be altered on Tuesday, May 3, 2005, and he requested that the pants be ready on Thursday, May 5. However, on the day of collection, Ms. Chung informed him that the pants had mistakenly been taken to another store. The plaintiff testified that the pants that Ms. Chung presented back evidently failed to match his suit jacket, which was still hanging in the store, even though Ms. Chung nonetheless insisted that the pants were his (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). The plaintiff then required the defendants to deliver a check amounting to $1,150, to recompense him for the missing pants and discharge their promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” He also stated that failure by Custom Cleaners to honor the guarantee by settling the payment demanded he would explore legal remedies against them for numerous violation of the CPPA (D.C. Code §28-3901 et seq.) and the fraudulent conduct and in effect would seek not less than $50,000 in punitive compensatory, treble, damages, and attorney fees. The defendants failed to respond, and the plaintiff the filed this suit against them on June 7, 2005. # 2 What are the issues? The core issues in the first case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s, centres on gross negligence. Gross negligence infers fault typified by extreme carelessness manifested by willful or careless disregard for the safety or possessions of another individual. Gross negligence may lead to punitive damages that are above and beyond general damage awards (Miller & Cross, 2010). The nature of the claim filed by Ms. Liebeck revolved around product’s liability claim whereby she alleged that the defendants were strictly liable under the Restatement of Torts Second,402 (a). Ms. Liebeck had filed suit (in 1993) claiming that the coffee served at MacDonald’s was defective due to its excessive heat and was highly probable to inflict an injury compared to coffee served in other establishments (Cain, 2007). She also alleged that the coffee was served in containers manifesting design defects as they bore insufficient warnings. She also sought punitive damages informed by the allegation that McDonald’s acted with full, conscious indifference for the safety of its customers. During the case, Liebeck attorneys discovered that McDonald’s necessitated franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees. At that temperature, the coffee will highly likely yield third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds (Miller & Cross, 2010). Thus, the producing cause of the defectively manufactured coffee was the exclusive fault of the defendants. Although, coffee at diverse temperatures bear the capability to cause burns, the problem with McDonald’s coffee emanate from the fast rate at which it could inflict such severe burns. In Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al. case, the plaintiff alleged that, based on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign, each of the three defendants (Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung) is legally responsible to him for seven distinct violations of the CPPA (Count One). The plaintiff also alleged common law fraud, informed by the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign (Count Two) (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). Furthermore, the complaint stipulates a claim for negligence that realtes to her alleged lost pants (Count Three), plus a claim for injunctive relief as per the CPPA. Centering on the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” signs, Mr. Pearson was seeking statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages (Count Four). The plaintiff also sought attorney fees, to which he claimed to be entitled as per CPPA provisions. Based on various calculations that he had undertaken, the plaintiff claimed damages amounting to $67million. The defendants (Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung) strongly dismissed Mr. Pearson’s interpretation of the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign, both factually and legally (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). The defendants also advised the court that they were set to request an award of attorney’s fees on the grounds that Mr. Pearson had filed suit in bad faith and vexatious litigation. # 3 What law applies? Liebeck v. McDonald’s can be regarded as a high profile tort case. Tort law infers a body of law that creates, and avails remedies for civil wrongs that do not emanate from contractual duties. In the Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al. case, the plaintiff cited the Consumer Protection Act (D.C.), as the basis for the litigation. The plaintiff maintained that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign indicated that the merchant should pay any client who asked for compensation. Both cases constitute tort or civil injury whereby there is a wrongful act or omission, which must yield legal damages or real damage, and the wrongful act must be of such nature as to deliver a legal remedy in the shape of an action for damages. # 4 What did the judge and/or jury decide? In Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the jury concluded in favour of the plaintiff and awarded Stella Liebeck $2.7million for punitive damages, with $200,000 awarded for compensatory damage (Cross & Miller, 2012). The triald judges later on trimmed down the punitive amount to $480,000 to match triple the “actual” damages awarded. The reduction brought the total to $680,000. Both parties appealed the decision and ended up having a confidential out of court settlement (Cain, 2007). The judge found Stella to be 20% at fault; first, she spilt the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car came to a halt, so she seemingly was not bumped to lead to the spill. Indeed, the plaintiff opted to hold the coffee cup between her knees rather that any number of harmless locations as she lifted the lid. In Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al., based on the foregoing, in the 23-page opinion, the judge ruled that Mr. Pearson did not deserve any relief whatsoever on his allegations under CPPA, Counts One and Four of his Amended Complaint. The court analysis of the plaintiff’s CPPA claims was applicable to the plaintiff’s allegations of common law fraud as alleged in the Count Two (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). The court ruled that the Mr. Pearson was unsuccessful in confirming the allegations by a preponderance of the presented proof. The District of Columbia Court of Appeal ruled deeply in support of the defendants and denied the plaintiff appeal of the case entirely. With regard to the Chung's family claim for attorney’s fees, the court ruled that the plaintiff should pay the defendants’ costs. # 5 An analysis of the appropriateness of the judge and/or jury's decision based on the applicable law controlling the case The Judges made appropriate judgments in both cases. In Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the judge made an appropriate decision since McDonald’s bore a legal duty not to render their coffee quite that hot. Based on research on the case, Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the verdict arrived by the judge was correct. McDonald’s exhibited gross negligence in maintaining their coffee at 180 degree Fahrenheit (Cross & Miller, 2012). In Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al., the judge was right to rule that Mr. Pearson’s claims had no merit whatsoever. Consumer Protection is a crucial issue and essential in protecting people against fraud; however, it is not something to be abused by individuals out to apply it to their own advantage as the plaintiff attempted to do. # 6 Ethical and Legal Issues Manifested in the Cases Ethical issues apparent in this case are inseparable from legal issues. In filing a claim to settlement, litigation can encompass diverse gray ethical areas such as the validity of a claim (factually or legally). Ethical issues evident in the majority of torts include ethical issues in frivolous claims, ghostwriting in litigation, and settlements. Ethics in settlements may derive from silence about facts, the law, and errors in settlement documents. Despite the first case been factually and legally sound, the amount of award given can be regarded as excessively. The high award set the stage for other toxic torts and heralded one of the most litigious decades in American history. In the second case, it is ethical issues are apparent when the plaintiff serves unenforceable subpoenas in the hope that the defendants (Chung family) think it is enforceable and cooperate (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). This can be categorized as greed on the part of Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson has a duty to desist from filing frivolous suits. # 7 An Analysis of whether the lawsuits can be regarded as "frivolous" lawsuits The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case cannot be classified as frivolous since the defendant (McDonald’s) purposefully made their coffee 180-200 degrees Fahrenheit when other establishments have coffee at much lower temperature. This was a deliberate decision by McDonald’s not to modify its corporate policy and serve its coffee at a lower and safer temperature. McDonald’s own quality assurance manager confirmed that McDonald’s implemented a policy requirement that all coffee be served at 185degree Fahrenheit (±5degrees Fahrenheit) (Cain, 2007). Furthermore, the quality assurance manager acknowledged that MacDonald’s coffee was not “fit for consumption” as it could cause scalding injuries to either mouth or throat in the event that the coffee was consumed immediately. In the Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al. case, the DC court of Appeals held that the trial court rightly ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. Pearson, allegations had no merit whatsoever. It correctly to assert that the cases were indeed frivolous. The lawsuit in the amount of $54million was excessive, and despite Chung’s offer to pay the judge $12,000 to settle out of court, the plaintiff cited emotional distress (mental anguish and inconvenience) plus other claims that only $54million could remedy (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). # 8 How the business owners have prevented the lawsuits? Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, plus other numerous businesses remain routinely exposed to and litigated over product, premises, or accompanying tort liability claims. This means that businesses should be cautious and conscientious. Surveys conducted on the topic reveal that a majority of the lawsuits could be evaded provided the offending party had simply apologized. In fact, in the case of Liebeck v. MacDonald’s, the plaintiff had requested that the defendant pay $90,000 for the incurred medical expenses, as well as for the pain and suffering (Miller & Cross, 2010). McDonald’s countered the demand with an offer of $800. Ms. Stella Liebeck admitted that she would not have filed the lawsuit against MacDonald’s if the defendants “had not dismissed her request for compensation” (for the incurred medical bills and pain suffered). Hence, business should not entirely dismiss an out of court settlement as this could be cost effective. Enhanced regulation could minimize a company’s liability and the necessity for civil litigation in the first place. In an effort, to minimize frivolous lawsuits, the government should institute regulations that would make it that if a lawsuit is ruled frivolous in the court of law; the plaintiff should be ordered to settle the other party's legal fees. Similarly, setting a limit on the possible punitive, compensatory damages that can be rendered in a given lawsuit can also play a significant role in discouraging frivolous lawsuits. Conclusion The notion of protections through torts may appear like a contradictory phrase; however tort that emanates from some form of wrongdoing may serve as a protection. As demonstrated in Liebeck v. MacDonald’s, suffering a wrong avails some incentive for people performing actions and guarantee that they perform them in an appropriate (reasonable) way; hence, tort avails incentives for safety and avail compensation for victims. Suffice to say, this case serves as a wake-up call for corporations in America no to establish policies and procedures devoid of considering the ramifications of their decisions. References Cain, K. (2007). And now the rest: The MacDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit. Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law, 11 (1), 14-19. Cross, F. & Miller, R. (2012). The legal environment of business: Text and cases, ethical, regulatory, global, and corporate issues. Mason, OH: South Western, Cengage Learning. Miller, R. & Cross, F. (2010). Business Law. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Surhone, L., Tennoe, M. & Henssonow, S. (2011). Pearson v. Chung. Saarbrucken, Germany: Betascript. Read More