...out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella Liebeck over burn from hot coffee. Information on the lawsuit and the settlement.. Reports on the out-of-court settlement of McDonald's Corporation with Stella...
Words: 1743 - Pages: 7
...Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants July 7th, 2014 Introduction Corporate giants are known for their strong legal defense teams, their shrewd business practices, and their strong presence in politics. In the United States, its adversarial court system allows corporate giants to have the upper hand when faced with litigation. In an adversarial court system, the stronger the defense (lawyers) is, the stronger the case. One extreme case in the American court system that deflects corporate giants’ upper hand in the United States’ adversarial system, is a 1994 “frivolous lawsuit,” Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant. McDonald’s is known for its fast-food and joy that it brings to children with its Happy Meals. However, in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant case, McDonald’s was known as an inconsiderate corporate giant whose nonchalance cost McDonald’s nearly $3 million. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant is a case that was a media train in the 1990s and misconceptions about the case filled the airways. Case Overview Why should your favorite quick service restaurant be responsible for serving your favorite breakfast beverage, coffee, just how you like it? Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant involved a then 79 year-old, Stella Liebeck, who purchased a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1992 (“McDonald’s,” 2002). “Liebeck tried to hold the cup of coffee between her knees while removing the lid; however, the cup tipped over and the hot coffee burned her...
Words: 3592 - Pages: 15
...Case Analysis Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants Pearson v. Chung Introduction Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurant, also referred to as the “McDonald coffee case”, was a well known case in the United States of America in 1994 because it was considered frivolous. The case involved a woman Stella Lieback, who spilled the hot coffee she purchased from McDonald onto her lap and sustained a series of third degree burns, and was awarded millions of dollars from her lawsuit against McDonalds. The coffee was not only hot, but it was scalding, capable of immediate damage to the skin, flesh and muscle (Letric Law, 2011). In addition to the above case, the Pearson v. Chung case, also known as the “pants lawsuit”, was also a well known case in America in 2005 (Lexis-Nexis, 2008). This is a case where an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia had taken a pair of pants to the cleaners for alteration and dry cleaning; and sued the cleaners for $67 million dollars for the loss of his pants. The case was considered frivolous and became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform (Lexis-Nexis, 2008). The major focus of this paper will be to critically analyze these two cases on the stated facts, the issues, the applicable laws, and the decision of the judge and the jury. What are the facts? There are some facts associated with Liebeck v. McDonald’s case. The woman involved in this case was 79-year old Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico,...
Words: 4178 - Pages: 17
...Frivolous Lawsuits: A Comparison of the McDonalds Case and the Pearson Case Michelle DeWald University of Maryland University College Introduction “When there are too many policemen, there can be no liberty. When there are too many soldiers, there can be no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there can be no justice.” - Lin Yu-Tang Chinese Writer and Inventor Suing companies in hopes of accumulating big money is popular in today’s society. However, many people get immensely creative with their claims, creating lawsuits over ludicrous motivations. Many cases endure for years or longer. Nevertheless, the costs involved in defending a claim can be exorbitant. Unfortunately, despite every precaution, we live in a society where anyone, any business can be sued for anything. Solely because a lawsuit has been filed, however, does not mean the case has merit. This paper discusses two legal cases related to frivolous lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed against the McDonald’s Corporation by Stella Liebeck in 1994. The second lawsuit was filed against Custom Cleaners by Roy L. Pearson, an administrative judge, in 2007. Both cases are notable and played a major role in guiding small and large companies in their responsibilities to their customers, reducing the risk of litigation, and protecting their assets to avoid unnecessary liability. Both cases will be analyzed by comparing and contrasting the facts, law, and merit. In addition, this paper will examine ethical issues...
Words: 2650 - Pages: 11
...occur.The challenge of the manager is fulfilling his/hers responsibilities by generating profit in business while protecting the interests of otherstakeholders, such as, employees and customers. Though the savvy manager cannot stop people from having the intention and grievances to sue the organization, they can reduce the motive of prospective plaintiffs and in event of a lawsuit happens; effective product liability management mitigates the negative effects on the organization. Management has the duty of making sure the product liability policies and programs of the organization is clear, concise and precise so that the interpretation thereof cannot be turned to work against the organization. Most lawsuits that are directed at organizations arise in the area of torts. The case of Liebeck vs. McDonalds: Relentlessly controversial in nature, this case continued to be the answer to the journalists’ prayer until it was settled. Liebeck vs. McDonalds aroused the interest of both the media and legal community and held public attention for its lifetime. Initially, the case took off like most frivolous lawsuits in which the...
Words: 1890 - Pages: 8
...Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners Legal Case Analysis AMBA 610 9043 University of Maryland University College Introduction Frivolous lawsuits can be a determent to those who are really seeking justice through the court system. Lawsuits that are frivolous in nature are filed in the court systems that lack legal merit (Frivolous Lawsuit Law & Legal Definition, 2015). Plaintiffs and attorneys who decide to partake in meaningless claims against other parties can anger society by wasting tax payer’s money on cases that are filed and argued with loop holes in litigation (Frivolous Lawsuit Law & Legal Definition, 2015). Evaluating the product and service liability laws will give insight into the two cases that will be discussed in this paper. The two cases covers how product liability effects the consumer and company owners of each industry of businesses. Cases that are brought to courts for product liability is always initiated by the plaintiff who has to prove if the defendant is liable for alleged action claims (Jones, 2015). Two cases that have made an impact on the pursuit of filing frivolous lawsuits is the Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners case, which will be discussed in further detail throughout this paper. If cases set precedence’s in the court systems, then these two cases show how people can obtain or attempt to collect monies from others that lacks in importance to bringing legal justice per society standards. Case...
Words: 3359 - Pages: 14
...A Frivolous Lawsuit is a case where people sue big corporations in the hopes of making a large sum of money. Many of these stories sound like absurd urban legends. Surprisingly, many of these ridiculous stories are true. In many cases, the person who is suing a corporation gets overly creative with their allegations and they create lawsuits which get thrown out. However, other cases such as Liebeck v. McDonald's go further. In February 1992, an 80 year old woman named Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee from McDonald’s to go. When the incident occurred, she was sitting in her nephew's car, that was pulled over so she could add sugar to her coffee. When Liebeck removed the lid of the cup she spilled her hot coffee on herself. She suffered...
Words: 442 - Pages: 2
...Buy one coffee and get US $640,000 free Reported by: Violet Simbi, M984011056 Uyanga Purevjav, M984011053 Anh Le, M984011066 NSYSU Department of Management BRIEF CONTENTS Abstract 3 1. Introduction and issue identification of the case 4 2. Analysis 7 2.1. Stakeholder analysis 7 2.1.1. Consumers 8 2.1.2. Owners, executives, employee 8 2.1.3. Other groups of stakeholders 9 2.2. CSR Analysis 9 3. Evaluations 10 3.1. Who is to blame? 10 3.2. Root cause analysis 11 3.3. Recommendations 11 4. Implication of the case for future product related complaints 12 Conclusion 15 References 16 Appendix (Case: “The coffee spill heard round the world”) 17 Abstract The Stella Awards were inspired by the Stella Liebeck case in 1992. Stella purchases McDonald’s coffee from a drive through and later received US $ 640,000 for burning herself with this coffee. The lawsuit between Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s – a huge cooperation, was one of the most controversial court cases of its time. In this paper we defined the major ethical issues, analyzed who are the stakeholders and how the stakeholders influenced this case. Furthermore, we also mentioned other complain and lawsuits which McDonald’s had to face with before 2007, which means before and after Stella’s case. Finally, we have some references and comments form McDonalds in particularly. As well as general comments about how organizations and how they make final decisions in the future when...
Words: 3304 - Pages: 14
...organizations, such as a McDonalds or car dealerships, where having statistical descriptive data, clear understanding of the policies, up and down the organization, and ensuring no significant information is being omitted is critical to running the company and avoiding lawsuits. A manager must be able to effectively analyze and evaluate data to make informed, intelligent decisions in many different situations. They need to be able to evaluate the reasons, without biases, in order to make sound decisions for the organization, as well as their employees and customers. There are lessons learned from the cases reviewed this week for managers related to critical thinking based on the two cases that are the focus of this paper, Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Custom Cleaners. . Liebeck vs. McDonalds As a very controversial tort case, Liebeck vs. McDonalds was a closely followed by the news and legal community. This case has been used as an example demonstrating a need for tort reform in the legal system. It started out seeming a simple frivolous lawsuit that was going to waste the court’s and jury’s time. It seemed clear that Liebeck was negligent in not exercising caution in handling her coffee but in the end, it was “found that MdDonald’s was 80% responsible for the incident, while Liebeck was 20% at...
Words: 3185 - Pages: 13
...Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment: Torts and Product Liability A Review of the Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants Lawsuits Executive Summary This paper will compare and contrast the legal and ethical factors surrounding the Liebeck v. McDonald’s and Pearson v. Chungs lawsuits all of which have been labeled frivolous. The first case is of Liebeck v. McDonald’s, Liebeck simply wanted a cup of coffee from McDonald’s. The second case of Pearson v. Chung, Pearson entrusted the care of his designer apparel to his local drycleaner. Should consumers stop trusting that companies have our best interest at heart and not their bottom line? Liebeck purchased a cup of coffee at the drive through of McDonald’s, the driver pulls to the side so she can add the sugar and cream. Maybe her mistake was putting the cup between her knees; perhaps there were no available cup holders. The cup tips over spilling the piping hot coffee all over her lap. McDonald’s is aware that the coffee they brew at over 190 degrees has burnt hundreds of consumers because they have settled more than $500,000 worth of complaints. Yet McDonald’s has refused this particular woman’s claim for her medical bills amounting to $11,000.00, forcing her to take legal action. Next, Pearson, a prominent attorney promoted to Administrative Law Judge in Washington D.C., excited about his newly acquired stature is eager to begin his job, which in turn requires him to wear a suit every day...
Words: 2692 - Pages: 11
...The case study manifests McDonald’s cold-blooded actions against the anguish of the 79-year-old plaintiff, Stella Liebeck in much publicized lawsuit, “hot coffee case”. It is the social responsibility of the company to look into the agony faced by the consumers in relation to its product, and this is where McDonalds fall short. The incident: The accident took place on 27th February, 1992, in Albuquerque, when Stella Lei beck along with her grandson ordered a McBreakfast at McDonald’s drive-thru on the way home. She was in the passenger’s seat, during her attempt to add cream and sugar in the coffee, inside stationary car, the scalding coffee spilled onto her lap. McDonald’s coffee was exceedingly hot, around 170 degree against the industry standard of 120-130 degree, within three seconds it caused third-degree burns on Stella’s groin area. She suffered numerous torments both physical and mental in the course of recuperation which took almost two years. After two years Stella sent a letter explaining the incident to McDonalds, her intent was not to claim for compensatory damage or filing a lawsuit for it, but to admonish them against the repercussions of their dangerously hot coffee posed. Her polite request to lower the coffee temperature was in the public interest. Past Action: The accident was not first of its kind for the McDonalds and the management was well aware of the fact that the incident is in the capacity to produce a potential lawsuit. They’ve faced 700 instances...
Words: 1128 - Pages: 5
... The Facts The circumstances in the case of Stella Lieback v McDonald’s Restaurant consist of a hot coffee burn incident. Stella Lieback a 79- year old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico visited a drive-through McDonalds. The incident took place on February 27, 1992 as a passenger in her grandsons ’89 ford probe, a vehicle with no cup holders. The case of Roy L. Pearson V Chung better known as the “pants lawsuit” which was a civil case filed in ‘2005. Pearson sued a D.C. dry cleaning establishment by the name of Custom Cleaners, for over $67 million for the loss of a pair of pants. The facts in the case state that the plaintiff left a pair of gray pants that probably could be extricated by a trio of belt loops on both sides of the front waist band. It appears there was a delay in providing the clothing due to plaintiff stating that the pants returned to him weren’t those submitted for service. As a result of the dispute the recourse taken by Custom Cleaners was to provide records and tags with proper documentation belonging to Pearson to resolve the issue at hand. Monetary play of $1,000.00 was the move Pearson made to Mr. Chung in order to rectify the dispute with the cleaners. This led to a refusal by the cleaner owner and Pearson filing a suit in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court. The Issues Presented The issues identified in case are third -degree medical burns from the coffee resulting in injury of the plaintiff. The other was a matter of inconvenience...
Words: 1840 - Pages: 8
...The coffee spill lawsuit against McDonald’s launched a host of other lawsuits against the same company. What are McDonald’s social responsibilities towards and consumers and consumer’s responsibilities towards McDonald’s? Compare, contrast and analyze this and determine what type of actions a company could make to meet this ethical obligation, and why it must be considered in these relationships. The Coffee Spill Heard Around The World Corporate Social Responsibility, Consumer Responsibility, And Protection The social economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities that McDonald’s has towards its consumers in the Liebeck case, and cases similar to it, pretty much go hand in hand. McDonald’s should be responsible legally for the harm that it caused, for the hospital bills, and just for the sake of good will. McDonald’s messed up and should have at least apologized for its mistakes instead of blaming the consumer for everything that happened. “More than 700(!) claims had been made against McDonald’s, and many of the victims had suffered third-degree burns similar to Mrs. Liebeck’s. Yet the company had refused to change its policy” (www.slipandsue.com, 2010, para. 8). When getting as many complaints as seven hundred in total between the ten years of nineteen eighty two and nineteen ninety two (www.knowledgerush.com, 2009, para. 4), prior to this case it is easy to ignore the isolated situations when you consider the fact the $2.7 million initially awarded...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...Individual Assignment 2: Case Study Wardell Johnson AMBA 610 Professor M. Frank Introduction It takes constant work to ensure that any given system maintains order. The universe has a natural tendency to lead to entropy “a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder” (Merrim-webster.com). What guides Humanity to function in a society in concert with their fellow man? It’s the ability to set up laws to govern the actions of the members of said society. According to researchers Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne (2011) great minds have always debated the purpose of laws. For instance, Plato expressed that law is a form of social control, and Aristotle posited that law is a rule conduct, an ideal of reason (Kubasek et al., 2011). No matter what ones philosophical views are in regards to legal systems whether good or bad, laws help societies maintain a sense of order, setting and maintaining a sense of normalcy, in efforts to prevent societal entropy. In America the foundation of our legal system is based on the U.S. Constitution created the nation’s founding fathers to ensure every citizen equal access to justice. Liebeck v. McDonalds and Pearson v. Chung are two highly publicize cases of Tort law. “The primary goal of tort law is to compensate the innocent persons who are injured or whose property as result of another conduct (Kubasel et al 2011, p.309). Both of these cases involve people who wanted to turn to the American legal system to obtain justice...
Words: 2747 - Pages: 11
...Liebeck won a 2.7 million dollar lawsuit for spilling coffee in her lap. This article will reveal the facts, issues, laws, and affects about this case. Many believe that our legal system is out of control. What do you think about this news story? After reading this article you will be a more informed citizen about this case and you will think twice about judging someone based on a news headline. What are the Facts? In 1992, Stella Liebeck purchased a cup of hot coffee at a McDonald’s drive through in New Mexico while sitting in the passenger seat. She proceeded to take off the lid of the coffee cup in order to add cream and sugar. She then accidentally spilled the coffee into her lap where it soaked into her sweat pants that she was wearing. This caused third degree burns that resulted in a seven day stay in the hospital along with skin grafting to repair the damage that was done (Schostok, 2000). What are the Issues? The issue that is specific to this case is whether or not McDonald’s should be liable for selling coffee that is too hot? The broader issue is, should businesses be responsible for the safety of their customers? What Law Applies? The product liability law applies in this case, specifically the “implied warranty of fitness [that is] imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code” (Morgan, n.d.). What did the Jury decide? The jury decided to award Liebeck $200,000 for compensatory damages. They also penalized McDonald’s $2,700,000 as punishment (Fleisher-Black...
Words: 1528 - Pages: 7
