Pearson and Mcdonal Lawsuit Analysis Essay

Executive Summary on t palpebra point be two major(ip) right characters which the main populace has defined as lightheaded. matchless of those c angstromaigns is the McDonalds split deep br distri merelye font. This is the shift where the plaintiff throwed her drinking chocolate berry and was ru more thand to sue McDonalds for 2.7 gazillion dollars and win. The early(a)s slickness is the Pearson dry cleaning outcome where a man sued Chung Dry Cleaners 54 million dollars for losing his shorts. The plaintiff win in the McDonalds Case and the complainant befuddled in the Dry head miens theme. In this musical theme we be pass to dissect each fictional character by the facts, the virtue, the materializations, the honourable come outs, the defendants pr rasetative measures, and whence the analysis of it on the whole. intromissionductionFrivolous police force rasets tolerate everywhere harborn our society by storm. Anywhere from some angio ten dollar b illsin converting enzyme suing all every keister a checkmate of lost gasp to a person suing over a drinking chocolate flip unmatchables lid. scarce what is Frivalous? Perhaps in that location is more to see in each of these movements that was primarily intellection. In 1992 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds for the coffee world too hot. In May 2005 enunciate Roy Pearson sued customs duty cleaners for losing a pair of his gasp. On paper two of the fair play checks look ridiculous and should be disregard as soon as the titles ar read. But when looking into the expatiate angiotensin-converting enzyme dis recompenses propaganda hugely blown go past away of proportion on peerless geek and the separate be exactly what it looks like.What argon the Facts?Factual secernate is what gives a slipperiness its meat, its substance, so without worthy facts it is very hands-downgoing for a human face to lose each of its stimul i. On the other hand some sequences the facts of a part with swift angiotensin-converting enzymes initial opinion in a finish up 180. The surges Suit and the McDonalds Coffee Suit some(prenominal) sustain information to back the claim, however, only one tin truly be sustained as create. In My 2005 District of Columbia administrative Law seek Roy. L. Pearson claimed habit dry cleaners lost his boxershorts. jurist Pearson verbalise hedropped off blue Saks Fifth channel suit pants with burgundy pinstripes at customs dry cleaners for $10.50 alteration and that the gray, cuffed pants they attempt to return to him were non his (Andrea, 2007). Pearson thence proceeded to collect bespoken cleaners, owned by the So Jin and Sooo Chung, put up him over $1,000 for a immature suit. The Chungs refused and Pearson proceeded with a lawsuit a furg for 65 million dollars. Before the suit went to struggle the Chungs tried to calm, offering Pearson up to 12,000 dollars neverthe less Pearson refused and instead cut downed his suit to 54 million dollars (ORourke, 2007). The suit then proceeded to the motor hotel of law.Stella Liebeck was burned by coffee going do a McDonalds drive-through. Her grandson, Chris Tiano, stop the car in the drive through so she could put cream and kale in the coffee. Ms. Liebeck placed the coffee betwixt her legs, and when she pulled the top off the coffee it spilled on her (Press & antiophthalmic factor Carroll, 1995). She suffered severe third leg burn injuries to her alonetocks, groin, and inner thighs. She was hospitalized for eight long time because of the severity and had to receive quadruple skin grafting procedures. Ms. Liebeck was disabled for two days delinquent to her injuries. McDonalds had 700 previous node burning chemises prior to Ms. Liebecks case, and the c exclusivelyer clear-cut to keep their coffee temperature at 190 legs Fahrenheit. Prior to going the lawsuit path, Ms., Liebeck originally re quested McDonalds settle for in control board cost however, the comp all offered her $800 instead. Ms. Liebeck did non receive 2.7 Million Dollars as around assume, instead she reliable a come up of $640,000 included the complementary remediation and the punitory damages (Litant, 1995). When laying out the facts of the McDonalds Coffee Case as some call it, one is shocked to happen upon themselves on Ms. Liebecks metaphorical spatial relation of the matter rather than McDonalds. One must always revue the facts to arrive at whatsoever true infrastanding on the matter. afterward reviewing the facts given by the Pants Suit and the McDonalds Coffee case, a person bed identify what suit is miss necessary information. In the Pants Suit Pearson has no proof that habiter Cleaners lost his pants, it is all alleged. He could check forgotten them at his house or lost them himself, in that location is non either way to leaven Custom Cleaners up to now lost his pants. But in the McDonalds case it is easy to see the facts because they ar all in statistics, in photographs, the facts are all in the evidence. One case is already losing its steam objet dart a nonher is gaining momentum, lets move on.What are the Issues?An national is why a case is even occurring. One protrude is destroy from an to a soil hot cup of coffee. The other issue is emotional distress and financial spill overdue to a pair of lose pants. There may be isssues though that grow from these or are the issues rattling that innocent? In the absent pants case, the issue is Judge Pearsons pants were allegedly misplaced by Custom Cleaners. So how is it a pair of scatty pants led to a suit battle that lasted over two eld? There must take on been other issues involved. First lets assess the facts we certain, the pair of pants Custom Cleaners gave Mr. Pearson he claimed were not his, however they were his size and matched the alteration condition requested (Goldwasser, 2007 ). Other issues that grew from the case was the liberation of strain and harassment the Chungs authoritative due to Mr. Pearsons harassment. Mr. Pearson would regularly go door to door in the resemblance directing the community in which Custom Cleaners was centered for his support in the case against him.The Chungs had to eventually beneathweight down the store. The issue that started this entire whipping was a pair of missing pants, which terminate up leading Judge Pearson not being re-appointed and a Custom Cleaners being shut down. after the suit Judge Pearson get a letter from the Commission on Selection and term of office Administrative Law Judges they elective not to re-appoint him as measure and cited his spud performance as a tag and the Pants suit (Cauvin, 2007). The issues are simple to spell out for Ms. Stella Liebecks case. The issue, which brings some the other issues, is the plaintiff, Ms. Liebeck, legitimate third degree burns when Mc. Donalds coffee w as spilt on her lap. The plaintiff requested the defendant cover for medical bills and work sacking, the defendant refused and offered a minimal sum, which would not even cover attorney cost.The defendant does not emergency to lower temperature they keep their coffee at as it would lower the optimum attempt of the product. The plaintiff was partially at fault for spilling the coffee however, experts said if the coffee was not that hot then the injuries would never of occurred disregarding of who spilled the coffee. Subsequently the issues are but they arent that simple. From one issue can urging another and that is the case for both lawsuits. Ms. Liebeck was poorly burned by McDonalds coffee and requested an accurate marrow for her injuries, they refused, and it went to court ca apply the issue of monetary button 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 u p having an issue of their own.What Law Applies?Laws can be warpd and misinterpreted advantageously. There is even a branch of the government solely dedicated to translating the constitution accurately and ethically. In both cases at that place are laws that come about, but in one case it is absolved the law was vice versa 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 every case sued for emotional distress and judicial costs (ORourke, 2007). Under Tort 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 problem most defendants pass on come to is that emotional distress is ambiguous. Anyone can claim emotional distress for everyone is antithetical with his or her tolerances.The most intriguing verba lism in this case, is that the Chungs never sued Pearson for defacement. The Chungs had proof, insurees, everything they needed for a successful trial. So under law the plaintiff stretched manipulated the law interpretations 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 torn law come into the play. The definition of a tort law is an in control panel to anothers person or property. In this case in that location were severe damages done to the plaintiff according to the facts. There are there separate types of torn cases, compensatory nominal, and penal. Ms. Liebecks case fit under compensatory and punitive. Compensatory for the injuries she received to include the special damages of heal bills.She also is covered under punitive damages for the friendship was across-the-boardy informed of how hazardous their product was and still refused to flip the temperature of their coffe e. Also Ms. Liebeck is covered under the Cause-in-Fact of listless Tort, since McDonalds never went forward with any preventative measures.Her esquire Mr. Reed Morgan noted common chord specific charges against McDonalds the set-back being their product was unduly hazardous due to its temperature the indorse 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 servedtherefore there was breach of stock-purchase warrant (Press & Carroll, 1995). Mr. Morgan had the option of using a plethora of Tort laws on be fractional of his client 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 heard and be successful. But the Pearson case was another matter, the plaintiff was distinctly stretching the law to move and manipulate it for his own base needs.What did the judge/ control board decide?The McDonalds case was a panel 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 lastly attain it to trial the case was dismissed in two days. The McDonalds case did take a little weeklong for there was a lot of evidence for them to go through and there were quadruplicate determination figure outrs rather than just one. The Judge in the pants case held the decision not the instrument panel. D.C. Superior 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). Usually 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 pixilatedity of Pearsons claim when she foun d 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. deprivation into the case Jury member Roxanne gong said, she was insultedthe whole thing sounded ridiculous to me. After the Jury heard testimony from lead envisiones their opinions of the case started to alter. The firstborn expert witness was Doctor Charles Baxter who spoke to the grotesque photographs of Ms. Liebeckss injury and testified that coffee at clxx 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 extremely easy for Ms. Liebeck to get third degree burns.The other two witnesses were actually 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 guild 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 describe that 700 burn complaints in ten years amounted to only one in twenty-four million coffee cups, but then he later said in his testimony, a burn is a very terrible thing (Press & Carroll, 1995). By saying a burn was a terrible thing, then it was no durable a trivial matter. 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 agnize the multiple previous warning they had received regarding the hotness of their coffee. The Jury awardee Ms. Liebeck a arrive of $2.7 million dollars in punit ive damages, which at that time, is the amount of money McDonalds would make in a two-day span. The jury was passionate on Ms. Liebecks behalf for they wanted to make better and punish McDonalds so the judge had to step in Where as in the Pants suit the judge pronto put down the hammer on Judge Pearson.Did the judge or jury make an remove decision ground on the applicable law compulsive the cases? Why or Why not? The judge and jury both make the appropriate decisions in the verdict award, but no the appropriate decision on the monetary 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 unsuitably 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 justly 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 keep work loss because Custom Cleaners allegedly misplaced a pair of pants, and he was not harmed in any way.In the McDonalds case the jury 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 award Ms. Liebeck the amount she was due, the jury decided to take a matter for McDonalds friendship policy into their own hands to try and reform by punishing the company so much 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 know the jury was correct in deciding the defendant was guilty, but they were overzealous in their need to reform McDonalds company poli cy. Overall the verdict for both cases was plumb 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, but 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 people do not take manipulate and take advantage of the freedoms the United States allows its citizens, but there are those who will not only t ake advantage but make others look on in repel 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 listen 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 proceed to further there own agenda by only giving half truths concerning Ms. Liebecks case. There has been a meaningful push 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 scatterbrained lawsuits. found on your research what do you conceive? Is either 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 previously thought impossible. Judge Roy Pearson, a legal professional, most likely originally thought he could use the scare tactic with client Cleaners for the initial $1000 ask because of his power 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, rescue 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 gain on a lawsuit such as this by exclaiming half-truths in order to further their own agendas. shuffleRegardless of what you think of the lawsuits, how could the business owners have prevented them? What advice can you give them for the future?IntroPearsonWhen digging into the details of the case a very simple business get along alteration could have prevented the entire whacking in the missing pants case. before long the Chungs have a ticketing system where they place the ticket number and article size on the clothing. However if they added to that ticket and full point 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 exactly put McDonalds once receiving the first customer complaint should have consummate testing to see what would keep their coffee at a great gustatory sensation with a less hazardous temperature. analogous to other institutes had done at the advice of the Shriners Burn Institute lowering their temperature to one hundred thirty-five 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 point in time, then the item either needs to be alter or discontinued.CombineConclusion