Reasearch Tote Case
Researching Tort Cases of Liebeck v. McDonalds and Pearson v. Chung
The law defines a “frivolous” lawsuit as “presenting no debatable question” to the court. The tort cases Liebeck verses McDonalds and Pearson verses Chung were both highly publicized cases that were coined as “frivolous” lawsuits that have a negative impact on the economy and the way we conduct ourselves in society. According to Phillip Howard, Chairman of Common Goods, a legal reform coalition, Tort claims cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars per year and they are changing our behavior and culture (Pearle, 2007). Due to the number of assumed meritless cases in the United States the Tort Reform movement was born to propose reducing tort litigation and damages. The advocates on this reform says that small businesses are suffering much like how the Chungs, who had to close their business because of the financial strain that the case caused them, and critics of the reform states that “ it is movement that seeks to strip Americans of their legal rights” (History, 2011). A closer look at the statistics and unbiased research of the two cases will truly determine whether the cases have any merit or not.
Liebeck v.McDonalds
The “McDonalds Coffee Spill” is the most widely known tort case in the country (Liebeck v. McDonalds). The case was tried in Albuquerque, New Mexico in August 1993. When the case first hit the media circuit the news painted a picture of a clumsy old lady who spilled coffee all over herself while driving or riding in car, sued McDonalds, and was warded 2.7 million in punitive damages from a sympathic jury (O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, 1999). Further details of the case would surface 6 months to a year later with information that showed that this case was far more than trivial.
Facts
• 79 year old grandmother Stella Liebeck was in the passenger sit of a car being driven by her grandson Chris when the incident occurred. The car was at a
The law defines a “frivolous” lawsuit as “presenting no debatable question” to the court. The tort cases Liebeck verses McDonalds and Pearson verses Chung were both highly publicized cases that were coined as “frivolous” lawsuits that have a negative impact on the economy and the way we conduct ourselves in society. According to Phillip Howard, Chairman of Common Goods, a legal reform coalition, Tort claims cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars per year and they are changing our behavior and culture (Pearle, 2007). Due to the number of assumed meritless cases in the United States the Tort Reform movement was born to propose reducing tort litigation and damages. The advocates on this reform says that small businesses are suffering much like how the Chungs, who had to close their business because of the financial strain that the case caused them, and critics of the reform states that “ it is movement that seeks to strip Americans of their legal rights” (History, 2011). A closer look at the statistics and unbiased research of the two cases will truly determine whether the cases have any merit or not.
Liebeck v.McDonalds
The “McDonalds Coffee Spill” is the most widely known tort case in the country (Liebeck v. McDonalds). The case was tried in Albuquerque, New Mexico in August 1993. When the case first hit the media circuit the news painted a picture of a clumsy old lady who spilled coffee all over herself while driving or riding in car, sued McDonalds, and was warded 2.7 million in punitive damages from a sympathic jury (O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, 1999). Further details of the case would surface 6 months to a year later with information that showed that this case was far more than trivial.
Facts
• 79 year old grandmother Stella Liebeck was in the passenger sit of a car being driven by her grandson Chris when the incident occurred. The car was at a
References: Berger, J. (1994). Big Jury Award For Coffee Burn. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu District of Columbia Court of Appeals (2011). Pearson v. Chung, FindLaw for Legal Professionals. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1339256.html History of Tort Reform (2011). Online Lawyer Source. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/tort_reform/History.html New Mexico Courts case lookup (2011). Retrieved from http://www2.nmcourts.gov/caselookup O’Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris (1999). The MCDONALDS Coffee Cup Case-Separating The McFacts from The Mcfiction. Retrieved from http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html Pearle, L. (2007). “I’m Being Sued for What”? ABC News Law & Justice Unit. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3121086&page=1 Polinsky, A., & Shavell, S (2010). THE UNEASY CASE FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY. Harvard Law Review 123(6), 1438-1492. Retrieved from EBSCOhost The Facts of Pearson v. Chung (2011). Retreived from http://manning-sossamon.com/pantfacts/ The famous/infamous “McDonald’s Coffee Spill Lawsuit” revisited (2007). Retrieved from slip-and-sue-com