HOW ONE JUDGE LOST A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT AND HIS DIGNITY WHO WEARS THE PANTS? LADY JUSTICE!
After losing an article of clothing from a dry cleaner, most would say “c’est la vie” and move on. At most, someone might leave a bad review and ask for a few dollars to cover the loss, but for one administrative
After the initial allegations, the dry cleaners scoured their business to find the pants and, to their credit, found the judge’s trousers untarnished. Even so, Pearson argued that he didn’t need to prove the pants were lost or damaged to satisfy his “satisfaction guaranteed” claim.
law judge, that wasn't enough. He decided instead to launch an all-out legal battle. Roy Pearson, a Washington, D.C., judge at the time, sought $54 million to cover the loss of his pants after his dry cleaner lost them. He argued that the “same- day service” sign located in the window of the dry cleaners meant that the company had to provide same-day service. However, Pearson
Unfortunately for the judge, the court found his position to be ridiculous and ordered him to pay the dry cleaner’s attorneys’ fees. In response, Pearson sought that his own attorneys’ fees be covered to oppose this motion.
In the end, Pearson did pay the dry cleaner’s legal fees, but the case isn’t the only thing he lost. The verdict also cost the judge his job and any semblance of professional dignity. Ten years after the case closed, the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility sought a 90-day suspension. As the board put it, Pearson “failed to conduct an objective appraisal of the legal merits of his position. He made and continues to make arguments that no reasonable attorney would think had even a faint hope of success on the legal merits.” From a legal standpoint, we’d call this judge’s behavior “dissatisfaction guaranteed.” The Case Liebeck sought help from Texas attorney Reed Morgan, whose dedication to the Liebeck family pushed this case to fame. Morgan sued the corporation for gross negligence, and in 1994, the case began in the New Mexico District Court. Liebeck’s lawyers found reports of McDonald’s requiring its restaurants to serve coffee at a piping 180–190 degrees Fahrenheit. (Increase that by 30 degrees, and you reach boiling point.) This temperature causes third-degree burns within three seconds. In addition, the lawyers found 700 burn complaints from customers to the restaurant. However, McDonald’s argued that its coffee was meant to be enjoyed by commuters, who would be able to sip on a cooled cup of joe once they reached work. The Verdict A jury found McDonald’s to be 80% at-fault for Liebeck’s injuries, awarding her nearly $3 million. Later, the parties would settle for $600,000, which Liebeck would use for later-life care until her death in August 2004. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants continues to be a pivotal case in personal injury litigation, and it’s often a case that people point to as an example of “frivolous” lawsuits. But when you break down the facts, there’s no denying the truth: Stella Liebeck and her lawyers fought against a big corporation and won, sending the message that no negligence will go unpunished.
never specified a specific time he needed his clothes returned. He also insisted that the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign meant that the
SIP ON THAT cleaners had to satisfy a customer’s wishes without limit. Based on those arguments, he claimed the signs were fraudulent. Why the McDonald’s Coffee Case Is Pivotal for Consumers Everywhere
It’s probably the most famous case in civil law litigation. You’ve heard about it on sitcoms, late-night television, a documentary about frivolous cases, and even in a Toby Keith song, but do you know the real story behind the McDonald’s Coffee Case? The Facts In February 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered coffee from a McDonald’s drive-
thru. Her grandson was driving the vehicle, which did not have cupholders. As a result, Liebeck balanced the coffee between her thighs to add sweetener. The coffee spilled across Liebeck’s thighs, causing third-degree burns. Liebeck would later undergo skin grafting, an eight-day hospital stay, two years of medical treatment, a partial disability, and the need for a home-care nurse. Initially, Liebeck asked McDonald’s to cover her medical bills, which would have been no more than a few thousand dollars for the multibillion-dollar burger corporation. Instead, McDonald’s counteroffered with a mere $800.
Thank you, Stella.
2 | 229-888-0888
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter