Introduction
A tort is a civil wrong that is committed as a breach of duty owed to somebody else. The law of torts covers different topics like false imprisonment, auto accidents, product liability and slander and libel. Environmental pollution may also be included in such a case. The person who suffers is supposed to be compensated by the person who is liable or responsible for the injury inflicted.
The role of economic torts is to ensure that individuals are protected from a possible interference in their business or trade operations. As a form of a case law, product liability ensures that manufacturers, distributors as well as the retailers of a product bear responsibility in the event that a product that they offer to the market results in any injury to the consumers.
This is because they are the ones who make customers access the product and hence should be ready to explain the injury in question. In this case, they should be able to maintain their responsibility for any action.
In a legal environment, a specific case can be said to be frivolous if it has little or no chance of being won in the courts (Coase, 1990, p.4). The claim is termed frivolous if it is found to be rather absurd. This might be regardless of the legal standing that the case seems to be portraying at that particular time. In some occasions, the case might be prohibited by the law. On the other hand, a case can only be certified to be frivolous after a proper investigation has been done.
The legal environment plays an integral role in business and can either make the environment (business) favorable or unfavorable. Companies continue to face lawsuits as a result of their business activities and this study will look at two cases that have manifested themselves in recent years.
Discussion
Facts
We have two cases where both complainants sued for what they considered to be damages done on them. In the first case, Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds for damages from the third degree burns she sustained from hot McDonalds coffee that she spilled on her lap while seated in her car (Ted, 2005, p. 16). The key fact about this case is that Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off but rather she was on the passenger’s seat. She had ordered for coffee from the drive-through window of the company’s franchised restaurant.
At that particular time, it was her grandson who was driving the car. The incident took place as the grandson attempted to pull over the car so that she could have time to add cream and sugar to her coffee. By the time this occurred, the hot cup of coffee was between her knees.
After the coffee spilled, she had to sit in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds. In addition, she was seriously burned and needed treatment and rehabilitation for almost two years. This was after she sustained 6-16% burns on her skin thereby undergoing skin grafting.
In the second case, Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for several million dollars for damages resulting from a lost pair of trousers (Fisher, 2007, p. 8). The company in question was a dry cleaning establishment owned by the Chungs.
The allegations were that the son took the pants to be dry cleaned but the dry cleaner delayed in delivering them back to the client because he had sent these to a different dry cleaner by mistake. When the pants were returned to Pearson after the expiry of his pick up date, he declined to have them, claiming that these were not his pants. This made him to launch a lawsuit against the dry cleaners.
Issues
In the case of Liebeck, she had sought to settle the issue with the company. She only wanted $ 20,000 to settle her medical costs which were in real essence $ 11,000. The company did not see it realistic to pay her this amount and offered $800 (Gerlin, 1994, p. 9). After the company refused to increase this amount, she sought the services of a Texas attorney (Reed Morgan) to file a suit in a New Mexico district court. In the suit, they accused McDonalds of gross negligence.
They said that the company was selling defectively manufactured and unreasonably dangerous coffee. McDonalds refused to agree to any settlements outside the court as they could not come to terms with any of Morgan’s offers. In forwarding and arguing their case they said that the company served extremely hot coffee that did not conform to the industry recommended temperatures.
The company’s franchises served coffee at 180 -190F. Given the high temperature level, it was established that the coffee could have inflicted burns on the victims in a very short time, between two and seven seconds. From Pearson’s case, he demanded the price of the pants as his compensation (Steiner, 2007, p. 12).
The amount in question here was $1000 which was turned down by the owners of the company (Chungs). After failing to agree, he filed the case in the District of Columbia superior court. In advancing his case, Pearson had two points of argument.
The first claim said that the pair of pants in question was not the original one he had given the drycleaners to clean. In the second claim he had an issue with the signs posted outside the business. According to Pearson, the signs at the business premises were a real distraction because of the guarantee by the business premises to offer same day delivery service. In this case, the dry cleaner did not fulfill this promise.
What law applies?
The law has clear guidelines on what should be done in cases of product negligence and liability. In such cases, the injured has to show that the defendant did not use reasonable care in manufacturing and designing the product. The manufacturer is also supposed to give adequate warnings in advance so that customers are made aware (Koppel, 2010, p. 14).
In cases of strict liability of tort, the plaintiff has to prove that he was injured by the product. It must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injury came about as a result of a defect in the product. The defect should have existed from the time the product left the manufacturer and continued being there.
The law is clear that customers should be protected from unsafe products. Because the products end up causing injury to their consumers, manufacturers are supposed to bear the costs of the injuries. When a product lacks adequate warnings, instructions or even labels, then it is deemed defective. In filing cases, the injured must prove that the manufacturers did not give adequate instructions on the products.
When a consumer is aware of a potential risk and assumes it, the manufacturer can not be held liable for any injury caused (Steiner, 2007, p. 9). In cases of intentional tort, the complainant is supposed to prove that there was a voluntary act or intent. There must be a tangible prove that there was causation of the problem in question. If the plaintiff agreed to the act there might be no case to be argued in this scenario.
Intentional torts are supposed to protect individuals from any kind of injury and ensure that their properties are safe. In the long run, they are supposed to take care of business relationships and economic interests of all the parties involved. This could also result in emotional distress on a victim as a result of the defendant’s outrageous conduct.
Whenever a person is subjected to severe emotional suffering, there is a case to be answered by the accused (Gerlin, 1994, p. 6). In extreme cases, there should be no proximate or actual causation of any emotional distress to a given individual. The law does not allow any trespass to personal property. In a broad sense, it does not have any provision for altering personal property. An individual does not have any moral authority to control the property of another person in any given case.
What did the judge and/or jury decide?
In Liebeck’s case the verdict was reached by a twelve person jury. Using the comparative negligence principle, the jury reached a conclusion that McDonald’s was to blame for the incident in question. In addition, Liebeck was found to be 20% responsible as a result of her fault. It is quite clear that the coffee had a warning on it but the jury was of the opinion that it was not large enough to be noticed by the complainant.
As a result they were able to award her compensatory damages worth $ 200, 000 which was later reduced by 20% to $160, 000.Liebeck was also awarded punitive damages worth $2.7 million (Gerlin, 1994, 3). This was settled at because the company was estimated to collect $1.35 million per day.
The punitive damages were reduced to $ 480,000. These figures were disputed by both McDonalds and Liebeck. Later on they decided for an out of court settlement of not more than $ 600,000.After the Chungs presenting three consecutive offers which were rejected by Pearson the court made a concern that the plaintiff was acting in bad faith. Some issues were ruled in their favor of the Chungs but the judges were convinced that they had a case to answer.
The trial to this case came to a close in 2007. In this case, the judge handed victory to the dry cleaners. She also awarded them court costs which were pursuant to a motion (Koppel, 2010, p. 23). The Chungs later on withdrew this motion to shy away from being given the court costs. In addition, the court had taken a judicial notice of Pearson’s divorce proceedings.
This decision was not received well by Pearson who had an issue with the ruling where he said that the court had made numerous errors that needed to be looked into again (Koppel, 2010, p. 17). On the other hand, the Chungs moved to recover $83,000 in attorney’s fees (Koppel, 2010, p. 13).
Appropriate decision based on the applicable law
In both cases, the judges made the best and appropriate decisions in relation to the law. Starting from Liebecks case the company had a case to answer. It is evident that there were numerous cases that had been filed in relation to McDonalds products. The cases are estimated to be 700. This therefore raises a question about the company’s commitment to resolve this issue even when it had foreseen it coming (through the cases filled).
Although the coffee cup had a warning, it was not satisfactory enough to be able to capture the attention of the customer and this can be said to be negligence (Bainbridge, 2004, p. 11). Under normal circumstances, the law is clear that manufactures are supposed to put on their products warnings, guidelines and instructions. This is supposed to help customers in using the product thereby avoiding any accidents that can lead to injury.
The complainant was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed he had been injured while using the product. Because the product ended up causing injury to the consumer, McDonald is supposed to bear the costs of the injuries (Gerlin, 1994, p. 5). As a matter of fact the judges were fair in awarding Stella the money she got.
In the second case of Pearson the ruling was fair as the dry cleaners had not contravened any law. There was no evidence that they had breached any law in handling his pants. In fact the pants were ready for collection at the agreed date. The judge did not see any case that the dry cleaners were supposed to answer.
When a person is subjected to a severe emotional suffering; there is a case to be answered by the accused. In extreme cases there should be no proximate or actual causation of any emotional distress to a given individual. This is not seen in this case as Pearson has no strong basis of argument. As a matter of fact, the dry cleaners had proved that the pants belonged to Pearson as their records and receipts (in his possession) proved them right.
Ethical issues
There are notable ethical issues in the cases. The judges had professional ethical issues to look at. Professional ethical issues do not differ from the legal issues. Judges were supposed to ensure that they give the cases the necessary professional approach at their disposal (Bainbridge, 2004, p. 21). This was to be done in relation to the law. Since these were distinct cases they needed to be guided by what the law says about a certain issue.
Professionalism is an ethical issue that goes well with the legal issues. In giving sound rulings, the judges ensured that they have adhered to the legal issues as far as their profession dictates. Therefore, it can be said that this ethical issue did not differ with the legal issues put in place.
Another ethical issue was from the way the suits were filed. They were supposed to be filed on the existing legal framework. Liebeck can be said to have followed the right ethical issue by presenting a genuine case. It is ethical to be genuine with the complaints we put forward and they should not contravene the legal issues (we have to in cooperate). Hence, in this case it can be said that the ethical issues did not differ with the legal issues.
There is an extreme case where the ethical issue does differ with the legal issue. Ethically Pearson’s case does not have any legal basis that can support it (Koppel, 2010, p. 20).
In filing the case, it would have been wise for him to know if it is worth what it takes instead of him going ahead yet he had no prove that the dry cleaners had lost his pants. In a legal environment, ethical issues can help to reinforce and enhance legal issues that will promote professionalism. Through this, there is bound to be sincere and genuine frameworks of solving legal related issues.
Is either one or both of these cases frivolous?
In a legal environment, a case can be said to be frivolous if it has little or no chance of winning in the courts. The claim is termed frivolous if it is found to be rather absurd. This might be regardless of the legal standing that the case seems to be portraying at a particular time. In some occasions the cases might be prohibited by law. On the other hand, a case can only be certified to be frivolous after proper investigation has been done.
The first case of Liebeck does not have any signs of being frivolous based on the way it was approached. She was right to file a suit against the company after looking at it from a winning point of view, this was guided by the fact that 700 cases had been advanced about the company before.
One can not term this case absurd because there was concrete evidence that she had been burnt by the company’s product and hence the need to file it. The coffee that burnt her was produced at high temperatures (that were much higher) than what other competitors were offering in the market (Ted, 2005, p. 13).
In making the ruling, the Judge acknowledged that coffee (from McDonalds) had instructions. In addition these instructions were not comprehensive enough. If the instructions would have been clearer and understandable enough she could not have burnt herself.
This case can not be termed frivolous because it had not been presumed so by law. The law is able to identify such cases and know how to deal with them. Such cases are normally considered to be baseless. The second case of Pearson was frivolous because the law prohibits such a case. An example is from the way the magistrate threw it away without seeing any basis of argument.
This case does not any basis of argument as it looks too absurd that he is suing the dry cleaners yet they gave him his pants (Koppel, 2010, p. 12). The dry cleaners have proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are genuine. To prove that they had the original pants they gave out the records and receipts of sales. Cases need to be well evaluated before they are filed to ensure that they are not frivolous at all. This is necessary to ensure that the legal frameworks are efficient in solving any business problem that arises.
Business owners
Business owners have faced various problems in relation to their products. Their products have either been defective or they have ended up injuring those using them.
These kinds of problems are expected but caution has to be taken as they have adverse effects if they turn out to be true. This is because the company might end up paying a lot of money in damages or compensation. As a matter of fact, this eats into their profits.
Although the two cases are distinct, there is a way that the owners could have prevented them from occurring. The owners or management of McDonalds had done everything possible to ensure that customers read instructions on the use of their coffee (Coase, 1990, p.14). This is laudable as customers need such directions and guidelines to be able to use the products effectively.
The only loophole they have not sealed is their inability to ensure that the instructions are well laid out and clearly visible to their consumers (Ted, 2005, p. 26). Through this, they could have avoided this problem. They need to ensure that this is done so that any other future lawsuits on this basis end up being baseless. McDonalds have served their coffee in high temperatures to ensure that they stay hot for a long time.
There have been complaints that their coffee is too hot compared to what other competitors are offering in the market. Because of this, they could have reduced the temperatures (that their coffee should have) as it could not have resulted into serious burns. The problem was made worse by the high percentage of burns that Liebeck sustained and this could be avoided.
McDonalds needs to ensure that there is a lot of consumer awareness on the use of their products in future. This can be explained from the fact that the complainant also made a mistake by putting the hot cup of coffee between her knees. In normal circumstances an enlightened consumer can not do such a mistake.
The owners of custom cleaners could also have avoided this problem. They could have labeled the pants and other clothes well so that they don’t go to other dry cleaners as this seemed to be the basis of Pearson’s lawsuit. In future, they need to ensure that they avoid such petty mistakes that can end up being costly.
On the other hand, they should ensure that they deliver on time as expected by customers to avoid any inconveniences. This is necessary as the customer can sue them for subjecting him/her to emotional suffering. In addition, they need to enhance their record keeping as the problem seems to have emanated from there.
Conclusion
The key fact about the first case is that Stella was not driving when she pulled the lid off but rather she was on the passenger’s seat. She had ordered for coffee from the drive-through window of the company’s franchised restaurant. In the second case, Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for several million dollars for damages resulting from a lost pair of trousers. The company in question was a dry cleaning establishment owned by the Chungs.
In both cases, the judges made the best and appropriate decisions in relation to the law. Starting from Liebecks case the company had a case to answer. It is evident that there were numerous cases that had been filed in relation to McDonalds products. The cases are estimated to be 700. This therefore raises a question about the company’s commitment in resolving this issue even when it had foreseen it coming (through the cases filled).
In the second case of Pearson, the ruling was fair as the dry cleaners had not contravened any law. There was no evidence that they had breached any law in handling his pants. In fact, the pants were ready for collection at the agreed date. The judge did not see any case that the dry cleaners were supposed to answer.
Reference List
Bainbridge, S. 2004. Trial lawyer propaganda at KOS. Retrieved from https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2004/08/trial-lawyerjohn-edwards-propaganda-at-kos.html
Coase, H. 1990. The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Fisher, M. 2007. Wearing Down the Judicial System with a Pair of Pants. Washington D.C: The Washington Post.
Gerlin, A. 1994. A Matter of Degree: How a Jury decided that a Coffee Spill is worth $2.9 Million. USA: Washington DC.
Koppel, N. 2010. Pants judge: Roy Pearson strikes out in court. Washington D.C: The Washington Post.
Steiner, E. 2007. More on the Verdict in Pearson v. Custom Cleaners. Washington D.C: The Washington Post.
Ted, F. 2005. Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case. Retrieved from https://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/