Cases Analysis: the Liebeck V. Mcdonald’s Lawsuit, and the Pearson V. Chung’s

3028 Words13 Pages
Cases Analysis: The Liebeck v. McDonald’s lawsuit, and the Pearson v. Chung’s Introduction The Liebeck v. McDonald’s story and the Pearson v. Chung’s lawsuit were two well-known cases that were regarded as trivial in the United States of America in 1994 and 2005, respectively.. The Liebeck v. McDonald’s lawsuit, known as the “McDonald java case”, involved a 79-year-old lady Stella Lieback, who accidentally poured the hot coffee she bought from McDonald onto her lap and this resulted into a continual sequence of third level burns. From her court action against McDonalds, the court ruled in her favour and she was paid huge amounts of money. The coffee was not only hot, but also scalding, able to inflict instant and severe injuries to the epidermis and muscular (Letric Law, 2011). The Pearson v. Chung case, also known as the “pants lawsuit”, (Lexis-Nexis, 2008) engaged an attorney in the Region of Mexico who, after asserting the loss of a pair of his trousers, sued and charged the dry cleaning business for $67 million. The situation became the breaking point in the debate in the United States over tort change (Lexis-Nexis, 2008). What are the facts? There is some fundamental information associated with the two cases. 1- The Liebeck v. McDonald’s story involved a seventy-nine-year old lady, Ms’ Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, a retired sales employee (Cain, 2008). On Feb 29, 1992, Ms Liebeck, sitting in the passenger seat of Frank, (her grandson)’s car that the latter drove through a drive-thru screen at a regional McDonald restaurant, ordered a java that was given to her in a McDonald’s disposable coffee cups (Letric Law, 2011). Then, Frank forced away from the drive-thru screen, ceased the car to allow her grandmother to add cream and glucose to her java. But, Stella had problems getting off the lid. She then put the cup between her thighs, in

More about Cases Analysis: the Liebeck V. Mcdonald’s Lawsuit, and the Pearson V. Chung’s

Open Document