Torts and Product Liability - Research Paper Example

Torts and Product Liability Introduction The law of tort and product liability has been in use for many years. However, the claims made by the plaintiffs and decisions made by the jury have raised eyebrows. The most remarkable cases include that of Stella Liebeck v McDonald and Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners. The two cases have been regarded as frivolous lawsuits. The paper will discuss each case in detail and find out if the cases were frivolous lawsuits. The Facts Stella Liebeck v McDonald Stella was 79 old and a retired department store clerk when the incident happened on 27 February, 1992. Stella Liebeck was driving her son Jim, with her grandson Chris Tiano to the airport in Albuquerque in New Mexico. She and Chris missed breakfast because they had to leave the house very early in the morning to the airport. After dropping Jim at the airport, the two (Stella and Chris) went to the McDonald’s drive-though for the breakfast. Stella ordered a McBreakfast and Chris her grandson, parked the car so that she could add sugar and cream to her coffee (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). She could not add the cream and sugar because there was no flat surface in the car where she could place the coffee cup and get the lid off. As an alternative, she placed the coffee cup between her knees and tried to get the coffee cup lid that way. As she tried to remove the lid, hot coffee spilled onto her lap (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). Chris got out of the car to help her; he pulled her sweat suit twisting it as the coffee (170 degree) burned her inner thigh, buttocks and groin. She was taken to the hospital and upon arrival at the emergency room; she was confirmed to have sustained third-degree burns. Stella spent a week in the hospital and three weeks at home nursing her injuries with the help of her daughter, Nancy Tiano (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). After a while she was hospitalized again for skin grafts and during that period she lost around 20 pounds and at times she was practically immobilized. Though she was not willing to sue McDonald, her family was of the opinion that she had to be compensated for the out-of-pocket expenses and her daughter’s lost wages for the time she had stayed with her at home (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners On May 2005, Pearson took his pants to the Custom Cleaners for alterations. Roy Pearson was at that time the newly appointed Washington, DC administrative law judge. Pearson owned five expensive Hickey Freeman suits which he wore one for every day of the week. The pants had become uncomfortable and thus he took them to the local dry cleaning service (Custom Cleaners) for alterations. The business is owned by a Korean couple who had come to the United States in 1992 (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). When Pearson went to pick the items from the Custom Cleaners, he found that one of his pair of pants was missing. After some time, the owner of Custom Cleaners found the missing pair of pants; the pants matched the Pearson’s claim ticket. Pearson refused to accept the pants and claimed they were not his and accused the Custom Cleaners of trying to give him cheap pants other than the ones he had brought to be altered. The judge sued Custom Cleaners for 67.3 million dollars (Sias, 2009). The Issues Stella Liebeck v McDonald Stella pressed charges against McDonald for gross negligence and selling coffee that was defectively manufactured and unreasonably dangerous. The lawyer, Morgan asked for compensatory damages that were not less than a hundred thousand United States dollars. Apart from the compensatory damage, suffering and pain was also included. According to McDonald, Stella was wholly responsible for the injuries she inflicted on herself. The company blamed Stella for spilling coffee on her lap. Despite the company receiving coffee heat burn complaints for over ten years, it was reluctant to reduce the coffee heat. The company was aware of that the coffee caused serious burning but it was not ready to go beyond a minute print warning on the cup that said, “Caution: Contents Hot!” (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). The real issue in the case was how far the society could go in restricting what most people enjoy and accept. Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners Pearson alleged that the Chungs (owners of Custom Cleaners) had misled him. According to him, the Chungs lost his pair of pants and tried to return the wrong pair of pants. Some of the signs in the Custom Cleaners were misleading and these signs include “Same Day Service” and “Satisfaction Guaranteed” (Manning Sossamon, n.d.). He alleged that Custom Cleansers lost his pants and broke the promises that they had put through the mentioned signs (Hendon, 2009). The Chungs maintained that the pants delivered to Pearson belonged to him and further denied that the Custom Cleaners signs were not misleading. The Chungs requested that the case be dismissed but the judge decided that the case should go to trial because there were two issues that were in dispute; (a) whether the grey pants that were offered to Pearson belonged to him and, (b) whether the signs that were hanged in the Custom Cleaners were misleading (Manning Sossamon, n.d.). The Law the Cases Apply to Stella Liebeck v McDonald The law applied in Stella Liebeck v McDonald is the law of tort. Tort is a Latin word that means twisted in English and in French the word means wrong. A tort can be defined as a wrong done by someone to the other person that results in the injury of the person or property; it is concerned with obtaining monetary compensation for the damage or the injury done (Morissette, 2008). The defendant also referred to as the tortfeasor is the individual who causes the harm and from whom the compensation is sought for the damage or injury. A tort is usually a civil addressed wrong rather than a criminal addressed wrong. A tort ought to be an injury that can be compensated in terms of money although at times an injunction can be used; an injunction is a type of nonmonetary compensation (Morissette, 2008). The plaintiff in the tort case is an individual. The purpose of the tort case is to compensate the plaintiff or deterrence of actions that caused damage or injury to the plaintiff. Negligence, medical malpractice and personal injury are also included in tort. There are five sources of tort law; common law, statute, restatement of torts, constitution and administrative (Morissette, 2008). Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners The law applied in Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners is the product liability law. Product liability law is applied where wrongs that do not arise from the breach of contract can be compensated. The wrongs can not either be remedied in the future by an injunction. The law is classified as a tort law because it can be developed in a case law and at times amended by the state provisions. However, there are no federal laws that exist in regard to product liability (Fischer, 2009). The following elements are looked into in the product liability law: Harm – the harm can be tangible or intangible. Tangible harm includes damage to property, personal damage or pecuniary loss. Intangible includes compensation for suffering and pain. Causation – this applies when the harmed person proves that among the designed products provided caused the harm or damage. The party that caused the harm becomes liable for the damaged caused and it is in proportion to their market share. Breach of duty – the common law provides the intensity of reasonable care that every agent has to offer and observe and the behavior is judged in comparison to the reasonable person in a similar situation (Fischer, 2009). Burden of proof – the person injured has to prove that causation, harm and breach of duty have occurred. Defences – the most common ones used are comparative and contributory negligence. This has to be proved by the plaintiff that actually the harm or damage was caused. The two forms of negligence are determined by the behavior expected from the average person. Assumption of risk defence only takes note of the capability and knowledge of the injured party. The assumption of risk often leads to the exemption or the reduction of liability if the party that caused injury proves that the injured party actually caused the harm or the damage. Recoverable damages – in the US legal system, punitive damages are awarded if it is proved that the injurer party behavior was reckless and had led to harm or damage to the injured party (Fischer, 2009). What the Judge/Jury Decided Stella Liebeck v McDonald The jury decided that Liebeck was to be awarded compensatory damages worth two hundred thousand United States dollars. The compensatory damage was reduced to 160,000 United States dollars because the judge found out that 20 percent of the fault was initiated by Mrs. Liebeck; spilling the coffee (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). The jury came to a conclusion that McDonald’s engaged in reckless, willful, wanton or malicious conduct and this was the basis for the punitive damages. The punitive damages decided by the jury amounted to 2.7 million United States dollars (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). The jurors who felt inconvenienced and insulted by the Stella’s frivolous lawsuit were angered by McDonald’s attitude towards their victims. One of the jurors even pressed for punitive damages that totaled almost 10 million US dollars. Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners The jury decided that the plaintiff (Pearson) was not entitled to any relief from the claims he had made under the Counts One and Four of the plaintiff Amended Complaint and CPPA. The jury also claimed that the plaintiff was aware that he was required to provide proof to his claims and the claims had to be convincing, clear and with unequivocal evidence. The jury said that he had not proven the claims through any evidence (District of Columbia Courts, 2007). The judgment therefore, was awarded to the defendants (Custom Cleaners) as well as the costs. The jury decided that a separate judgment had to be entered in regard to the findings. The issues raised by the defendant claims regarding the attorney’s fees against the claimant were to be addressed after the defendant’s motions for attorney’s fees and sanctions were filed and briefed by the parties involved (District of Columbia Courts, 2007). Did the judge/ jury make an appropriate decision based on the applicable law controlling the case? why or why not? Stella Liebeck v McDonald In this case, the jury made the appropriate decision in regard to the applicable law controlling the case. The plaintiff actually sustained injuries and she had factual evidence that the injuries were caused by the hot coffee. She had to be compensated for the out of pocket expenses she had used to nurse her injuries. The jury was fair in the compensatory damages; the plaintiff only got a section of the proposed compensatory damages. The jury was very right in claiming that part of the damage done was contributed by the plaintiff. The defendant was ignorant of what was happening to its customers; over 700 claims of coffee burns in a stretch of 10 years were reported to the company. Though the company was aware of the situation, it did not take any drastic measures to curb or look into the situation. The company was acting out of negligence and the punitive damages charged were appropriate. Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove that the pair of pants were lost and the one returned actually belonged to him. The jury was appropriate when it decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The product liability law requires that the injured party provides evidence that the harm was actually done and in this case the plaintiff failed to do. The decision to award the judgment to the defendant was appropriate because they had to be compensated for the legal fees they had incurred during the trials. However, the judgment was only to be effective if the defendants filed motions for the attorney’s fees and sanctions. Ethical Issues in the Cases In both cases, there are ethical issues that arise. One important issue is whether the claims made by the injured parties are normal or they are just a reflection of a society that is overly controversial (Jenkins, 2009). In the case of Stella Liebeck v McDonald, the attorney asks how far the society ought to go in restricting what is enjoyed and accepted by most people (Buchholtz and Carroll, 2008). In the case of Roy Pearson v Custom Cleaners, the attorney claims that the laundry failed to return the pair of pants and instead the laundry offers Pearson a different pair of trousers. The defendant had provided evidence of the Pearson claim ticket that matched with the claimed trouser. Another important issue arises, the extent to which the jury believes that anyone has been injured; the intensity of damage or the harm is held constant (Jenkins, 2009). Ethical issues differ from the legal issues; the former are what the society accepts to be true and believe are good for everyone. On the other hand, in legal issues, the matters decided in most cases are not compatible with what the society believes and accepts. Both Cases Have Been Described As Frivolous Lawsuits; Are Both Cases Frivolous Lawsuits? Both cases are frivolous lawsuits; the claims made in both cases were legitimate but the extent each case went and the damages claimed were out of question. In the Stella’s case, the harm done and the costs incurred required compensation but the harm was partly caused by her. The company’s failure to agree to the agreements made makes the case look ambiguous. The same scenario applies to the Pearson’s case. Some of the claims made and the jury’s decisions were not normal. How the Businesses Could Have Prevented the Cases The business could have prevented the cases by being considerate to the claims made by their customers. Both companies were wrong and negligent and if they could have listened to their customer’s claims, the cases could not have gone to that extent. In the future, the companies need to look at their relationship with the clients and be flexible in matters that pertain to damages or harm made to the customer. Conclusion Both cases are frivolous lawsuits because of the extent of the claims that were made and the jury’s decision in both cases. It is imperative to note that the cases could have been prevented by the companies involved. However, this did not occur partly due to negligence and the refusal to accept that anything wrong was done. The jury decision in both cases was fair and the decisions were both based on the ethical and legal issues. References Buchholtz, A. K. & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. District of Columbia Courts. (2007). Superior court of the District of Columbia civil division: Roy L. Pearson, JR. Plaintiff, v. Soo Chung, et al. Defendants. Retrieved from http://www.dccourts.gov/dccourts/docs/05CA4302PearsonFindings.pdf Fischer, V. (2009). Liability law – economic analysis of defective products. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Hendon, D. W. (2009). 365 powerful ways to influence. Louisiana: Pelican Publishing. Jenkins, J. A. (2009). The American courts: A procedural approach. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Manning Sossamon. (n.d.). The facts of Pearson v. Chung. Retrieved from http://manning-sossamon.com/pantfacts/ Morissette, E. L. (2008). Personal injury and the law of torts for paralegals. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online. Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Read More