Liebeck and Pearson

Liebeck and Pearson

Case analyses and discussion on tort reform

Executive Summary

This paper explores two highly publicized tort cases that highlight the sometimes frivolity of tort lawsuits.  The purpose of the paper is to determine whether the claims were valid and the awards just.  First, the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s explores a product liability issue.  Second, the case of Roy L. Pearson v. Soo Chung, et al. examines fraud and warranty issues.   The Liebeck case is researched through news articles and online publications in that a copy of the unpublished decision was not available.  Pearson was researched by reading through the appellate case, news and journal articles.  Each case is analyzed for its merits and flaws with the final determination made that the Pearson case is without question frivolous; the McDonald’s case, on the other hand, is clearly not.   The following paper sets out the facts of each of these cases along with a discussion of both the legal and ethical issues and suggestions of how these businesses could have avoided these unfortunate lawsuits.

Introduction

Tort reform continues to be a highly debated topic in our country.   Advocates of reform using the online platform corpreform.com, decry the excessive abuses of the system by “greedy plaintiffs and money-grubbing trial lawyers” (“What is Tort Reform,” n.d.).    On the other side of the debate are those who feel tort law is an essential component in our system to keep big business in check and protect the rights of those who have been injured by those businesses.  Frivolous lawsuits have been the subject of national debate for some time.  In the United States, laws are structured to enable those harmed by the negligent acts of others to receive compensation for injuries.  At the same time, those laws are also structured to protect businesses from unwarranted legal actions or awards given to those seeking unjust compensation.   Two cases have garnered national attention and reignited that national discussion on tort reform:  Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Soo Chung, et al.  The following explores the merits and faults of these two cases and the impact of the court decisions on the continuing debate of tort reform.

The facts of the cases

The facts, according to attorney Kevin Cain (2007), in Liebeck v. McDonald’s, involve Stella Liebeck, a 79 year old woman, who was badly burned by a cup of what she claims was overheated coffee that she inadvertently spilled in her lap when she opened it to add cream and sugar.  At the time the accident occurred, Ms. Liebeck was sitting in the passenger side of a car being driven by her grandson that was, at the time of the incident in a stationary position, parked in a parking space.  When Ms. Liebeck opened the cup of coffee to add cream and sugar, the coffee accidentally spilled in Ms. Liebeck’s lap and was quickly absorbed by the sweatpants she wearing at the time.  Ms. Liebeck claimed that, because of the extremely hot temperature of the coffee, which was disclosed to be between 180 and 190 degrees, she was unable to react quickly enough to protect herself from the extensive injuries she sustained.  Ms. Liebeck’s thighs, groin and buttocks sustained extensive third degree burns that required skin grafting, debridement, hospitalization and a period of extended disability spanning two years.  Ms. Liebeck contends that McDonald’s acted negligently and irresponsibly in serving the coffee at such extreme temperatures and that, given that McDonald’s had received 700 prior complaints of the excessive coffee temperature and had settled those prior claims totaling, in the aggregate, over $500,000, they had a duty to either reduce the temperature or to provide sufficient warnings of the dangers associated with drinking McDonald’s coffee.  In an attempt to settle the case without litigation, Liebeck made an offer of $20,000 to cover her actual damages and McDonald’s responded with a ridiculous offer of only $800.00.  The case then went to trial.