Facts, Law. and Merits of the Two Law Suits (Mcdonalds and Pearson) Research Paper

Facts, Law. and Merits of the Two Law Suits (Mcdonalds and Pearson) - Research Paper Example Overall, however, a frivolous lawsuit, in the eyes of the legal system, delineates something more specific. Although, some lawsuits may appear silly, this does not necessarily translate to the notion that the lawsuits lack legal merit. The paper explores the merit of two cases: Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants; Roy L. Pearson, Jr. (plaintiff) v. Soo Chung, et al. Facts, Law, and Merits of the Two Law Suits Introduction In the case, Ms. Liebeck (the plaintiff) filed a complaint against McDonald’s (the defendant) alleging negligence. Stella Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew’s car, which was pulled over so that she could have a chance to add sugar to her coffee. First, the spilled coffee gave her third degree burns in more than six percent of her body (Cain, 2007). Secondly, she claimed that the coffee was served at an uncomfortable temperature (180-190 degree Fahrenheit) that can give individual third - degree burns (in 2-7 seconds). The seco nd case, Roy L. Pearson, Jr. v. Soo Chung, et al., has its grounding in a dispute between the plaintiff, Roy Pearson and the defendants, Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Chung, over a pair of supposedly missing pants. The plaintiff alleged that he took his pants to Custom Cleaners for alterations in May 2005; however, the defendants lost his pants and they attempted to replace it with another pair of pants for his (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2011). Mr. Pearson also alleged that a â€Å"Satisfaction Guaranteed† sign displayed in Custom Cleaners was in effect an unconditional warranty that demonstrated the defendant’s willingness to honor any claim advanced by any customer. #1 What are the Facts? Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck in the company of her son Jim and her grandson Chris Tiano drove to Albuquerque airport to drop off Jim who needed to catch an early flight. After leaving the airport, the pair grabbed some breakfast at MacDonald’s. Stella Liebeck was not driving the car when she lifted the lid of the cup. At the time, her grandson reportedly pulled over to stop so that Stella could put sugar and cream to the coffee that she had purchased. The plaintiff placed the coffee between her knees so as to keep it secured as she proceeded to remove the lid. Unfortunately, the hot coffee spilled in her lap and the liquid absorbed into her cotton sweat pants, which in turn held the scalding liquid against the body burning her badly (more than six percent of her skin) (Cain, 2007). The burns sustained required an eight day hospital stay and skin grafting. As a result, the plaintiff required close to two years of therapy and rehabilitation to treat the third degree burns. The 79 year-old Liebeck sustained burns in her buttocks, inner thighs, and genital areas inclusive of her left groin. McDonald’s declined a proposal for an out of court settlement for $20,000 in medical costs. The medical cost s amounted to $11,000, but McDonald’s offered the plaintiff only $800 (Miller & Cross, 2010). Amid the trial, McDonald’s quality control manager’s ascertained that their coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Overall, liquids at that temperature can inflict third-degree burns in a period of 2-7seconds. Statistics indicated that for a period of one decade (from 1982 to 1992),