Analyzing Compare and Contrast Cases

¶ … Stella Liebeck, who sued fast-food giant McDonald's for compensation, owing to several third-degree, and some second-degree, burns, sustained by her from a cup of scalding McDonald's coffee; and 2) Roy L. Pearson, who sued dry cleaning service, Custom Cleaners, for a compensation of many million dollars, owing to the loss of a pair of his trousers. The facts, issues, laws, ethical issues, and jury decision for both cases, as well as how the lawsuits could have been prevented, will be discussed. There will also be a section on whether the cases were "frivolous." "

The Cases

McDonalds Case:

Facts- On the 27th of February, 1992, retired sales clerk of a departmental store, Stella Liebeck, aged 79, riding with her grandson in his Ford Probe, in Albuquerque, ordered a value meal (Egg McMuffin) and a mug of coffee, at a McDonald's drive-thru. Chris Tiano (the grandson, who has graduated college and is an assistant golf professional) pulled away after receiving the ordered meal and came to a complete stop at a parking lot's curb. Stella attempted to take off the Styrofoam cup's cover and add sugar and cream to her coffee (Hartigan, et.al, n.d). As the car had no flat surface or cup-holder, Stella decided to use her legs as cup-holder and tried to take off the cover, causing the coffee to spill all over her lap. The scalding hot coffee was abruptly absorbed by Stella's sweatpants, and the pain made her scream. Initially, Chris thought it wasn't a serious issue and couldn't figure out what exactly was wrong. When leaving the parking area, his grandmother became nauseated and Chris assumed the incident might have shocked her. He stopped the car at the curb, assisted her with removing her pants, and helped her cover her legs using a sheet. Subsequently, he made for the first hospital he could locate (which was full), and then to another, where Stella finally got admitted. The doctors' report stated that the scalding hot coffee caused Stella's thighs, genitals, groin, and buttocks to sustain third-degree burns (this totaled 6% of Stella's body), while 16% of her body sustained lesser burns (Hartigan, et.al, n.d).

Long-time supporter of the Republican government, Stella, had never before filed a case against anybody. Rather than immediately seeking a lawyer, Stella posted a grievance letter to the company (i.e., McDonald's) a couple of weeks, following the incident. Stella wrote that it was wrong of the company to serve extremely hot coffee, capable of causing such serious injuries. She admitted that though the spillage was her mistake, she didn't expect anything more than a few minor injuries. Nonetheless, she stated that her intention wasn't to sue the company (Hartigan, et.al), but only to request that they: 1) Check the coffee-making process, to ascertain if there was anything wrong with it; 2) Reevaluate served coffee's temperature standards; and 3) Cover the expenses incurred as a result of the incident (i.e., medical costs, incidental and recuperation costs, which weren't fully known when Stella had written the letter). Varying estimates were made of the overall medical costs (between $10,000 and $15,000), together with additional expenses, and the total sum demanded by Stella as compensation amounted to roughly 20,000 dollars. McDonald's refused Stella's policy-change request altogether (i.e., her first and second requests), and only offered her $800 as compensation.

Issues- Stella's attorney, Morgan, demanded 90,000 dollars, which was immediately refused by the company. Subsequently, he filed an official lawsuit with New Mexico's 2nd Judicial Circuit, claiming the company served "defective" coffee, for two reasons: 1) it was dangerously and extremely hot; and 2) the company failed to provide adequate warnings concerning the risks associated with such hot coffee (Hartigan, et.al, n.d).

Laws- Products liability law (or the Uniform Commercial Code, in specific) was the basis for the claim. The complainant claimed violation of warranties of merchantability and fitness for serving a given purpose (Hartigan, et.al, n.d).

Jury Decision- Following a trial that lasted 7 days, and deliberation lasting 4 hours, the jury passed a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, on the following claims: violation of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for serving a given purpose, and product defect. Furthermore, the court asserted that the incident was partially the complainant's mistake (i.e. 20% complainant fault was found). The complainant was awarded 200,000 dollars as compensation, but this amount was reduced to 160,000 dollars on finding comparative complainant negligence. Punitive damages worth 2.7 million dollars were awarded to the complainant (Hartigan, et.al, n.d). Jurors remarked, later on, that, at first, their verdict wasn't leaning in the complainant's favor. However, her severe burns, evidenced by photos, and the previous complaint of coffee burns they received (totaling 700 in number) caused them to change their minds. Punitive damages were reduced by the trial court's judge to 480,000 dollars on 14th September, 1994, (the figure still represented thrice the compensation). The judge neither disagreed with the trial jury's findings, nor with the punitive damages decided as appropriate for the case (Hartigan, et.al, n.d). Attorney Morgan appealed this decrease in damages, which was denied. In its place, a meeting (post-trial) was ordered, wherein both parties came to an agreement to settle the case for some undisclosed amount. In view of the law, the decision for this case was reasonable and appropriate (Writer Thoughts, n.d).

Ethical Issues- As McDonald's failed to dispute complainant's claim that their coffee was excessively hot and was capable of severely scalding people (Hartigan, et.al, n.d), one could say that they were selling harmful products to their customers. There isn't really much of a difference between legal and ethical issues.

Pearson Case:

Facts- The origin of this case is a disagreement between Bladensburg Road's (N.E.) dry cleaning service, Custom Cleaners' owners Soo Chung, Ki Y. Chung and Jin Nam Chung and complainant Roy Pearson over the latter's allegedly missing trousers (FindLaw Caselaw. PEARSON v. CHUNG). The defendant states that he left his trousers with the neighborhood dry cleaners in May of 2005 for alterations. The dry cleaners (i.e., the Chungs) misplaced them, and tried to replace his pants with another pair. The Chungs deny the complainant's allegations, insisting that the trousers they tried returning to Pearson were the ones he left with them for alteration.

Issues- The complainant alleged a breach of Columbia district's CPPA (Consumer Protection Procedures Act) and deliberate misrepresentation of facts. The basis of his complaint was the signs "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" displayed at the dry-cleaning store.

Laws- According to Pearson, the Columbia trial court made a mistake rejecting his complaint that the Chung's "Satisfaction Guaranteed" store sign violated several CPPA provisions and represented common law fraud (FindLaw Caselaw. PEARSON v. CHUNG). For succeeding in the latter claim, a complainant has to prove, using convincing, clear-cut evidence, the existence of: false representation, which is made in connection with some material fact, with the intention to mislead; the defendant must have complete knowledge of the falsity of it, and an action must be taken relying on this representation.

Jury's Verdict- Complainant could not prove that the two signs, namely, "Same Day Service" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed" were misleading or false in nature, or that his trousers were misplaced by them. Hence, the judgment in favor of the Chungs was apt. Moreover, there was no abuse of trial court discretion in their denial of plaintiff's request for jury trial. The complainant maintains that the Columbia trial court he approached made a mistake, rejecting his late-filed jury trial motion (FindLaw Caselaw. PEARSON v. CHUNG). Meanwhile, defendants' argument is that the plaintiff made a procedural mistake in appealing court orders, refusing his jury trial motions, as he failed to specifically refer to these orders in the appeal notice he filed. His notice specified that Pearson appealed the order made on 25th June, 2007, together with those merged therein. Since the appeal of any final judgment disputes every previous non-final order and ruling, the complainant's appeal of trial court orders rejecting his trial jury motions was proper. In my view, the judge and jury's decision was correct, in light of the aforementioned facts.

Ethical Issues- There is no ethical issue determined in connection with the above case (Writer Thoughts, n.d).

Thoughts on Cases Being Frivolous

The phrase "frivolous case" might elicit associations with a few famous cases, including the McDonald's case involving Stella Liebeck. In legal terms, a lawsuit is frivolous if it involves a legal accusation without any legal merits. This lack of merit causes courts to normally toss out frivolous suits (Chow, 2012). However, frivolous lawsuits do not end up having any legal repercussion for the complainant or any legal troubles for the accused party. Frivolous lawsuits denote suits filed for the purpose of annoying, disturbing, or harassing the defendant. Another definition for the term may be: any lawsuit wherein the complainant is aware that, were the suit pursued in any trial court, it would enjoy no or scarce chances of success (Rivera, n.d). Several frivolous charges are filed each year under laws relating to personal injury, wasting precious time and monetary resources of private individuals and courts. The filing of frivolous claims is also called "frivolous litigation." Individuals filing such suits might themselves end up being at the defendant end of a lawsuit, if the other party seeks compensation for attorney's fees. They may even face court sanction. For instance, recently, a frivolous "truther" lawsuit resulted in a federal appellate court ordering the plaintiff's lawyers to make a payment of 15,000 dollars, together with double costs as compensation to the U.S. government.

The coffee-spilling case involving Stella Liebeck and McDonalds is considered the perfect example of such frivolous suits in a hyper-litigious society. Some commentators speculate that this case offers elements of common knowledge concerning the nation's civil justice structure that haven't been provided by any other suit. Nearly all law students are familiar with, and form their own opinions concerning, this case, even before learning it in their law classes (Hartigan, et.al, n.d). It is so famous that, often, one witnesses it being labeled as a typical example of frivolous modern-day suits that harm American business. The Stella frivolous-lawsuit Award has been named after this case's plaintiff, Stella Liebeck. Hence, clearly, the Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case is a frivolous one.

The second case taken up for discussion in this paper -- Pearson v. Chung -- is also frivolous. Ultimately, the complainant made a reconsideration motion on 11th July, 2007, claiming that, in his view, the judge made a major legal mistake, and did not see to his legal charges. The complainant asserted that, according to him, the trial court had enforced its personal conditional interpretation of the term 'satisfaction guaranteed' and not what he believed it to be -- a service offering unambiguous, unconditional satisfaction. The motion was denied. The dry cleaners made a motion to recover attorneys' fees amounting to $83,000 as well as to impose sanctions. However, they withdrew their motion after fund-raising aided them in recovering incurred costs (Pearson v. Chung, n.d). Defendants claim that their decision to do so was in the hope that Pearson would stop litigating. However, on 14th August, 2007, a notice of appeal was filed by him. On 10th September, 2008, this appeal was accepted by a court of appeals, and a hearing was scheduled for 22nd October, 2008. The defendants were represented by Manning pro bono. The Columbia District appellate court panel (comprising of three judges) who had taken up the case announced their rejection of it, on 18th December, 2008.