In 1994, there was a widely publicized lawsuit against the McDonald’s Corporatio

Question

In 1994, there was a widely publicized lawsuit against the McDonald’s Corporation in which an elderly woman, Stella Liebeck, sued McDonald’s for damages from the third-degree burns she sustained from hot McDonald’s coffee that she spilled on her lap while she was seated in her car. The case received so much publicity that it is frequently referred to today as an example of a “frivolous lawsuit” that hurts American business. Indeed, the “Stella Award” for frivolous lawsuits referred to in the article "The Mighty Quinn" was named after Stella Liebeck.

In 2007, Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for several million dollars of damages resulting from a lost pair of trousers.

Research these two cases, and in 10-12 double-spaced pages compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the two lawsuits by answering the following questions. Include an introduction and a conclusion in your paper.

1. What are the facts?

2. What are the issues?

3. What law applies?

4. What did the judge and/or jury decide?

5. Did the judge and/or jury make an appropriate decision based on the applicable law controlling the case? Why or why not?

6. What are the ethical issues in the cases? Do the ethical issues differ from the legal issues? If so, how?

7. Both of these cases have been described as "frivolous" lawsuits. Based on your research what do you think? Is either one or both of these cases frivolous?

8. Regardless of what you think of the lawsuits, how could the business owners have prevented them? What advice can you give them for the future?

Be sure to provide references for all information, including facts that you obtain from your research.

Explanation / Answer

1 “frivolous lawsuit” facts On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck was cared for 3 weeks by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for up to two years afterwards Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners Pearson sued a D.C. dry cleaning establishment, Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. On May 3, 2005, Pearson allegedly left a pair of gray pants that could be distinguished by a unique trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waistband. After a delay due to the pants being mistakenly sent to another dry cleaners, the pants were offered back completed several days after May 5, 2005, the initial pickup date. Pearson refused to accept the pants, claiming they were not his, despite confirmation by the cleaners' records, tags, and Pearson's receipt. Pearson demanded what he claimed to be the price of the pants as compensation, an amount of over $1000, which the Chungs refused. As a result, Pearson filed suit in the District of Columbia's Superior Court 2 Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's[12] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[15] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle issues The first claim was the issue of the ownership by Pearson of the presented pair of pants. The second claim was on the issue of signs posted outside the business, advertising "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed", which Pearson claimed to be misleading 3 law applies McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994 product liability lawsuit McDonald was obligated to sell safe products to its clients and warn its customers of any hidden risks in its products. Further, the jury determined that the company had breached the implied warranty of merchantability as well as the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose Under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act Common Law Fraud and CPPA Claims Regarding “Satisfaction Guaranteed” Sign - The trial judge in the Roy versus Customs Cleaners case declined to accept the unlimited claim held by the plaintiff over the ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ sign. The judge established that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that custom cleaner’s ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ sign violated the Consumer Protection Procedures Act and neither did it constitute a common law fraud. The trial judge declared that the plaintiff failed to prove that the pants presented by the defendant were not the ones he had delivered for alterations. Concerning the ‘same day service’ sign, the trial judge declared that the plaintiff had failed to provide concrete evidence that the defendants did not offer same day services 4 The jury conceded that although Stella merited compensation worth US $ 200, 000, however, they reduced the figure to 160,000 after finding that the plaintiff was 20% at fault. Further, the jury awarded Stella US$ 2.7 million in punitive damages due to malicious, reckless, willful or wanton conduct by the defendant. However, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to US $ 480,000 and directed that the parties engage in a post verdict conference and the case dismissed with prejudice. jury decide The jury’s verdict on the Roy versus the Chungs was based the plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated sections of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and the common law on fraud. 5 YES,Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000 appropriate decision Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom," Christopher Manning, the Chungs' attorney, said in a statement. "Simply put, Judge Bartnoff got it right." 6 Based on the facts, Corporate America’s and much of the media’s trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a “legal horror story” when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing. ethical issues Satisfaction should be guaranteed, the commission says, “only if the advertiser is willing to provide full refunds to customers when, for any reason, they return the merchandise.” 7 Conflicts within business setups are a common occurrence and business enterprises need to develop comprehensive and pragmatic dispute resolution policies that guide how to minimize and settle disputes between them and customers. In addition, businesses enter into social contracts and transactional relationships with the community they serve and are obliged to offer their services in responsible ways. The McDonald case exemplifies irresponsible business practices that do not consider the welfare of their clients. On the other hand, the Roy versus the Chungs’ exemplifies a case of irresponsible customer behavior in which the customer engages in an unhealthy relationship with a service provider. Through appropriate application of tort law, disputes arising from customer- business relationships can be resolved in a fair and just manner. Moreover, incidents of such conflicts can be minimized in future through adoption of safe and efficient business practices that fully meet customer expectations while reducing risks to both parties in the transaction.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.