Lawsuit Review: Liebeck and Pearson

Lawsuit Reviews:

The Case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Corporation

and

The Case of Roy L. Pearson v. Soo Chung, et al.

Over the past twenty years, there has been a surge in frivolous litigation that has been putting a strain on the legal system. For instance, In 1988, in the case of two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers, Falker and Roach, who were severely burned after a three and a half gallon container of carpet heater ignited after the water heater it was sitting on turned on felt the warning label on the back of the can which clearly stated “flammable” and “keep away from heat” was insufficient. As a result, they successfully sued the manufacture, Para-Chem, and awarded $8 million dollars (http://www.legalzoom.com/lawsuits-settlements/personal-injury/top-ten-frivolous-lawsuits). Since then, our society has become all too familiar with the filing of frivolous lawsuits. But are all of the cases filed frivolous in nature? Here, we will examine two cases – Liebeck v. McDonald’s Corporation and Roy L. Pearson v. Custom Cleaners – and determine if these two cases are frivolous or if they have legal merit.

Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Corporation

Case Facts

Stella Liebeck, a seventy-nine year old woman, purchased a cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s restaurant in Albuquerque, New Mexico on the morning of February 27, 1992. She was a passenger in her grandson’s car, who pulled over so that his grandmother could put cream and sugar in her coffee. While the car was parked, Liebeck put the coffee between her knees and as she attempted to remove the lid, she spilled the coffee on her lap. Since she was wearing sweatpants, the coffee absorbed rather quickly and held to her skin attributing to full thickness burns. The coffee was estimated to be somewhere between 180 to 190 degrees (Cain, 2007, p. 15). Liebeck was diagnosed by a vascular surgeon as having third degree burns over the middle extremities of her body – inner thighs, perineum, buttocks,...