Pearson and Mcdonal Lawsuit Analysis Essay

Executive thickset thither be two major virtue corresponds which the main populace has defined as idle. One of those berths is the McDonalds split umber role. This is the field where the complainant spilled her coffee bean and was ru mored to sue McDonalds for 2.7 million dollars and win. The early(a)s show font is the Pearson dry cleaning shield where a man sued Chung Dry freshs 54 million dollars for losing his blow. The plaintiff won in the McDonalds Case and the plaintiff anomic in the Dry substantiateances flake. In this authorship we are going to dissect each in brass by the facts, the truth, the issues, the honorable issues, the suspects pr char pissative measures, and because the analysis of it all.Introduction superficial fairness fair playsuits stupefy everywhere go forn our society by storm. Anywhere from somebody suing over a mates of upset drawers to a someone suing over a coffee fly off the handle. But what is Frivalous? Perhaps there is more to see in each of these suits that was earlier thought. In 1992 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds for the coffee existenceness too hot. In May 2005 essay Roy Pearson sued customs dry cleaners for losing a bridge of his pants. On paper twain of the lawsuits look ridiculous and should be dismissed as soon as the titles are read. But when looking into the details one discovers propaganda hugely blown out of proportion on one case and the early(a) being exactly what it looks like.What are the Facts?F unquestionable establish is what work fors a case its meat, its substance, so without worthy facts it is very easy for a case to lose whatever of its stimuli. On the other hand sometimes the facts of a case with bustling ones initial opinion in a complete 180. The buckles Suit and the McDonalds Coffee Suit both have learning to back the plead, however, only if one can truly be deemed as proof. In My 2005 District of Columbia Admin istrative fairness referee Roy. L. Pearson claimed customs duty dry cleaners lost his pants. try on Pearson said hedropped off deplorable Saks Fifth Avenue suit pants with burgundy pinstripes at Custom Cleaners for $10.50 alteration and that the gray, cuffed pants they tried to return to him were non his (Andrea, 2007). Pearson then proceeded to solicit Custom Cleaners, owned by the So Jin and Sooo Chung, correct him over $1,000 for a new suit. The Chungs refused and Pearson proceeded with a lawsuit a strip downg for 65 million dollars. in the first rove the suit went to outpouring the Chungs tried to settle, offering Pearson up to 12,000 dollars exactly Pearson refused and instead spurned his suit to 54 million dollars (ORourke, 2007). The suit then proceeded to the tourist court.Stella Liebeck was burned by coffee going through a McDonalds drive-through. Her grandson, Chris Tiano, s cover songped the car in the drive through so she could prepare cream and sugar in the coffee. Ms. Liebeck placed the coffee between her legs, and when she pulled the top off the coffee it spilled on her (Press & Carroll, 1995). She suffered severe third phase burn injuries to her neerthelesstocks, groin, and inner thighs. She was hospitalized for eight days because of the severity and had to receive sevenfold disrobe grafting procedures. Ms. Liebeck was disabled for two years due to her injuries. McDonalds had 700 old customer burning cases prior to Ms. Liebecks case, and the fri terminateship indomitable to elapse their coffee temperature at xcl degrees Fahrenheit. Prior to going the lawsuit path, Ms., Liebeck to begin with requested McDonalds settle for inpanel costs however, the participation offered her $800 instead. Ms. Liebeck did non receive 2.7 Million Dollars as or so assume, instead she authentic a total of $640,000 included the complementary damages and the punitive damages (Litant, 1995). When set out the facts of the McDonalds Coffee Case as most auspicate it, one is shocked to find themselves on Ms. Liebecks metaphorical emplacement of the matter rather than McDonalds. One must al modalitys review the facts to have any true understanding on the matter.After reviewing the facts given by the Pants Suit and the McDonalds Coffee case, a soul can identify what suit is missing necessary information. In the Pants Suit Pearson has no proof that Customer Cleaners lost his pants, it is all alleged. He could have forgotten them at his house or lost them himself, there is not any way to prove Custom Cleaners even lost his pants. But in the McDonalds case it is easy to see the facts because they are all in statistics, in photographs, the facts are all in the evidence. One case is already losing its steam while another(prenominal) is gaining momentum, lets move on.What are the Issues?An issue is why a case is even occurring. One issue is burns from an likewise hot cup of coffee. The other issue is emotional straiten a nd pecuniary loss due to a pair of missing pants. There may be isssues though that grow from these or are the issues really that aboveboard? In the missing pants case, the issue is try out Pearsons pants were allegedly misplaced by Custom Cleaners. So how is it a pair of missing pants led to a suit involution that lasted over two years? There must have been other issues involved. setoff lets assess the facts we received, the pair of pants Custom Cleaners gave Mr. Pearson he claimed were not his, scarce they were his size and matched the alteration specification requested (Goldwasser, 2007). Other issues that grew from the case was the loss of business and harassment the Chungs received due to Mr. Pearsons harassment. Mr. Pearson would regularly go door to door in the neighborhood postulation the community in which Custom Cleaners was centered for his support in the case against him.The Chungs had to eventually close down the store. The issue that started this whole fiasco w as a pair of missing pants, which ended up lead-in Judge Pearson not being re-appointed and a Custom Cleaners being shut down. After the suit Judge Pearson received a garner from the Commission on Selection and Tenure Administrative Law adjudicate they elected not to re-appoint him as valuate and cited his pour performance as a judge and the Pants suit (Cauvin, 2007). The issues are childly to captivation out for Ms. Stella Liebecks case. The issue, which brings about the other issues, is the plaintiff, Ms. Liebeck, received third degree burns when Mc. Donalds coffee was spilt on her lap. The plaintiff requested the defendant pay for medical bills and cream loss, the defendant refused and offered a minimal sum, which would not even cover attorney costs.The defendant does not want to lower temperature they keep their coffee at as it would lower the optimum savour of the proceeds. The plaintiff was partially at fault for spilling the coffee however, experts said if the coffe e was not that hot then the injuries would never of occurred regardless of who spilled the coffee. Subsequently the issues are alone they arent that simple. From one issue can spur another and that is the case for both lawsuits. Ms. Liebeck was severely burned by McDonalds coffee and requested an accurate get along for her injuries, they refused, and it went to courtca use the issue of monetary loss and embarrassment for McDonalds. The issue that grew from the Pearson case was the business loss the Chungs received. In both cases the defendants each ended up having an issue of their own.What Law Applies?Laws can be manipulated and misinterpreted easily. There is even a branch of the government solely dedicated to translating the constitution accurately and ethically. In both cases there are laws that come about, but in one case it is clear the law was perversely utilized. In the Custom Cleaners case the suit stated Judge Pearson was, defrauded by the owners of Custom Cleaners and by the Satisfaction Guaranteed sign they had (Cauvin, 2007). He in addition sued for emotional distress and legal costs (ORourke, 2007). Under civil wrong Law Pearson could be under Negligent Tort for damages, if he illustrates actual damages. Judge Pearson chose to sue under Intentional Torts, more specifically under Emotional Distress. The business most defendants have come to is that emotional distress is ambiguous. Anyone can claim emotional distress for everyone is different with his or her tolerances.The most intriguing aspect in this case, is that the Chungs never sued Pearson for defacement. The Chungs had proof, witnesses, everything they mandatory for a successful trial. So under law the Plaintiff stretched manipulated the law definitions with very little proof for a lawsuit and the defendant did not even attempt to gain retribution. In the case of Stell Liebeck vs. McDonalds several(prenominal) torn law come into the play. The definition of a tort law is an in gore to anothers person or property. In this case there were severe damages done to the plaintiff gibe to the facts. There are there separate types of torn cases, compensatory nominal, and punitive. Ms. Liebecks case conform to under compensatory and punitive. Compensatory for the injuries she received to include the special damages of doctor bills.She also is covered under punitive damages for the company was fully aware(predicate) of how hazardous their product was and still refused to change the temperature of their coffee. Also Ms. Liebeck is covered under the Cause-in-Fact of negligent Tort, since McDonalds never went forward with any preventative measures.Her esquire Mr. reed Morgan noted three specific charges against McDonalds the first being their product wasunduly hazardous due to its temperature the second being McDonalds failed to give its consumers the necessary warnings of the temperature the third being the consumers could not drink the coffee at the time it was servedthe refore there was breach of warranty (Press & Carroll, 1995). Mr. Morgan had the option of using a plethora of Tort laws on behalf of his knob Ms. Liebeck, and he took full advantage of that fact like any attorney would do for their case and client. In the McDonalds case the law was not overly used, because the ones they referenced were enough for their case to be perceive and be successful. But the Pearson case was another matter, the plaintiff was clearly stretching the law to try and manipulate it for his own base needs.What did the judge/jury decide?The McDonalds case was a jury trial and the Pants case was a judge trial. both cases were caught up in the legal battle for over two years. When the pants case finally made it to trial the case was dismissed in two days. The McDonalds case did ware a little lasting for there was a lot of evidence for them to go through and there were multiple decision makers rather than just one. The Judge in the pants case held the decision not t he jury. D.C. spiffing Court Judge Judith Bartnoff found for the defendant on all counts. Judge Bartnoff denied any damage costs to the Plaintiff and ordered Pearson to pay the defendants court costs (Cleaners 1, Judge 0 in case of missing pants, 2007). unremarkably when one is in the judgment of one of their own they find on behalf of their own. However it was clear Judge Bartnoff saw the absurdity of Pearsons claim when she found in behalf of the defendants.In the case of the spilled coffee most of the jury had a 180 from their original inclinations of the case. Going into the case gore subdivision Roxanne Bell said, she was insultedthe whole thing sounded ridiculous to me. After the Jury heard testimony from three witnesses their opinions of the case started to alter. The first expert witness was bushel Charles Baxter who spoke to the grotesque photographs of Ms. Liebeckss injury and testified that coffee at one hundred seventy degrees would cause second degree burns within 3.5 seconds of hitting the skin (Press & Carroll, 1995). And since McDonalds kept their coffee at 190 degrees it is safe to say, It was exceedingly easy for Ms. Liebeck to get third degree burns.The other twowitnesses were in reality defendant witnesses, the first was a quality-assurance supervisor at McDonalds, and the second was a safety consultant. The first witness was Mr. Christopher Apleton who testified that even though McDonalds had received over 700 coffee burn complaints in 10 years the company refused to lower their temperatures. The second defendant witness was Mr. Robert Knaff, whos main problem was he contradicted himself in the middle of his testimony. As first he was tring to key that 700 burn complaints in ten years amounted to only one in twenty-four million coffee cups, but then he later(prenominal) said in his testimony, a burn is a very afflictive thing (Press & Carroll, 1995). By saying a burn was a unnameable thing, then it was no longer a trivial matte r. At the end of the case Ms. Bell defended the jurys decision by exclaiming, it was our way of saying, Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned (Press & Carroll, 1995).The Jury decided to teach McDonalds a lesson for the over all negligence they displayed in their refusal to acknowledge the multiple previous warning they had received regarding the hotness of their coffee. The Jury awardee Ms. Liebeck a total of $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages, which at that time, is the amount of money McDonalds would make in a two-day span. The jury was fanatic on Ms. Liebecks behalf for they wanted to reform and punish McDonalds so the judge had to step in Where as in the Pants suit the judge quickly put down the hammer on Judge Pearson.Did the judge or jury make an appropriate decision found on the applicable law controlling the cases? wherefore or Why not? The judge and jury both made the appropriate decisions in the verdict award, but no the appropriate decision on the fina ncial award. In the case of the missing pants the judge appropriately awarded the fiscal and the verdict. The in McDonalds case the jury appropriately awarded the verdict but inappropriately awarded the fiscal amount. Judge Judith Bartnoff made the appropriate decision according the appropriate definition of tort law in the missing pants case. In interpreting the law one must as a judge throw out the absurd cases but still mightily review it. In her review of the missing pants case it was clear Mr. Pearson was unduly persecuting the Chungs over a pair of pants. Mr. Pearson did not have work loss because Custom Cleaners allegedly misplaced a pair of pants, and he was not harmed in any way.In the McDonalds case thejury made the correct decision in prize the suit to Ms. Liebeck, but they made in the incorrect decision in obnoxious amount they chose to grant. Instead of awarding Ms. Liebeck the amount she was due, the jury decided to take a matter for McDonalds company policy into the ir own give to try and reform by punishing the company so practically they would have no choice but to lower the temperature of their coffee from 190 degrees Fahrenheit. The judge was correct in overturning the jurys decision from awarding Ms. Liebeck 2.7 million in punitive damages to $480 in punitive damages. The judge recognized the jury was correct in deciding the defendant was guilty, but they were overzealous in their need to reform McDonalds company policy. general the verdict for both cases was fairly awarded.What are the ethical issues in the cases? Do the ethical issues differ from the legal issues? If so How? There are ethical issues easily seen in both the Pearson and the Liebeck cases. In one case the Plaintiff was unethical and I the other case the defendant was unethical. In the Pearson case the ethical issues and the legal issues do not appropriately correspond. It was unethical for Mr. Pearson to be allowed a lawsuit of $54 million dollars for a pair of pants, bu t he was legally allowed. It was unethical for Mr. Pearson to deface Custom Cleaners by putting up signs in that community against them, but he was legally allowed to. It was unethical for Mr. Pearson to demand Custom Cleaners, at the time of the incident, over $ gibibyte for a new suit, but he was legally allowed to. Many peck do not take manipulate and take advantage of the freedoms the coupled States allows its citizens, but there are those who bequeath not only take advantage but make others look on in curse for why he was allowed to do what he did. There are multiple ethical issues in the Liebeck case.The main one being responsibility. It is the responsibility of the company to harken to its consumers and McDonalds failed to do so on multiple occasions. The other is knowingly harming other, McDonalds knew there coffee had caused severe burns on other customers in the past but had refused to do anything about it, even when they were approached by the National Burn Victims Association to do so (Howard, 1994). In this case the ethical issues do not differ from the legal issues as each ethical issue directly corresponds with a broken law by McDonalds. there are major ethical issues by the press, congress,and other entities continuing to further there own agenda by only giving half truths concerning Ms. Liebecks case. There has been a material shake up by Tort reformers due to the jury decision made in Ms. Liebecks case, but those are using severe propaganda to do so.Both of these cases have been described as frivolous lawsuits. Based on your investigate what do you think? Is each one or both of these cases frivolous?IntroPearsonBased on the research given, the Pants Suit case was a frivolous suit. A frivolous case is considered to be absurd, unneeded, and antecedently thought impossible. Judge Roy Pearson, a legal original, most likely originally thought he could use the scare tactic with Customer Cleaners for the initial $1000 ask because of his p ower position. Instead when the defendant refused to pay that sum, the plaintiff lost his temper and in doing so lost his professional mind. The Plaintiff was not hurt, and he did not have any significant financial loss due to the initial incident.McDonaldsOn paper Ms. Liebecks case looks frivolous however, after examining the facts in no longer appears to be so. A woman did spill coffee on herself and did get burned, but she was severely burned from the hazardous temperatures McDonalds kept there coffee of hat was not fit for human consumption. The amount the jury awarded her it what most of society deems obnoxious, bringing the classification of her lawsuit to frivolous in nature. When just looking at the injuries Ms. Liebeck received from the coffee temperature, one could never deem it a frivolous lawsuit, but there are those who will seek to capitalize on a lawsuit such as this by exclaiming half-truths in order to further their own agendas. meltRegardless of what you think of t he lawsuits, how could the business owners have prevented them? What advice can you give them for the forthcoming?IntroPearsonWhen digging into the details of the case a very simple business practice alteration could have prevented the entire debacle in the missing pants case. Currently the Chungs have a raging system where they place the ticket number and article size on the clothing. However if they added to that ticket and item description the debacle could have been avoided. In doing this the customer is helped and so is the company.McDonaldsIt was rather obvious when looking through the facts of the McDonalds case how the company could have prevented their lawsuit, That is one of the main reasons they lost the case, is because due to their sever negligence in ignoring their consumer complaints, the jury was abhorred by the company. very(prenominal) simply put McDonalds once receiving the first customer complaint should have completed testing to see what would keep their coff ee at a great taste with a less hazardous temperature. homogeneous to other institutes had done at the advice of the Shriners Burn Institute hard their temperature to 135 to 140 degrees (Litant, 1995). In the future, some advice McDonalds should take is to listen to their customers, if there are several complaints regarding one item, then the item either needs to be altered or discontinued.CombineConclusion