Stella Liebeck V. Mcdonald’s and Roy L. Pearson

Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung, et al.

Are they frivolous lawsuits?

Jacqueline

Executive Summary

When it comes to frivolous lawsuits, two cases come to one’s mind: Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung, et al. Both of these cases have often been used to support call for tort reform in the U.S. The question is: do these two cases deserve the “frivolous” reputation or they are examples of urban legends. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case is about product liability. McDonald was negligence in serving its coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) and caused injury to the plaintiff by not having adequate warning on the cup of coffee. Differently, in Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung, et al., Pearson alleged several claims in his lawsuit. The first claim was the defendants misled him; they lost his pants but tried to replace the pants that were not his. 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.

In Liebeck v. McDonald's, a twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.00. In the Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung, et al. case, the court’s ruling in favor of the dry cleaners.

In my opinion the case of Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung et al. is frivolous while the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's is not. Plaintiff sued on ground of comparative negligence. Indeed, it was negligence but not as much as the defendant. The case of Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Chung et al. was not only frivolous but also highlighted a major flaw in our legal system.

When it comes to frivolous lawsuits, two cases come to one’s mind: Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Roy L....