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. He drops off the pants to his expensive suit at the neighborhood cleaner, where he has for years because they have a “Satisfaction Guarantee” and “Same Day Service”. Two policies he holds in high regard. Pearson claims the drycleaner owner attempted to pass off a similar pair of pants as the customer’s instead of admitting they had misplaced his original pair of pants then refusing settlement on three occasions in pursuit of millions of dollars in damages.
Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment: Torts and Product Liability
A Review of the Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants Lawsuits

What are the facts? As presented by Kevin Cain (2007) there are many tangible facts in the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case. On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79, from Albuquerque, New Mexico, received third degree burns to her thighs, hips, and groin because of the temperature of the McDonald’s coffee that spilled in her lap. As a passenger in her grandson’s car Liebeck purchased a cup of coffee via the McDonald’s drive through window. The coffee was served in a McDonald’s styrofoam cup with a plastic lid. Shortly after receiving their order, the grandson pulled the car over to give his grandmother an opportunity to add sugar and cream to her coffee. With the car in park, Liebeck placed the cup of coffee between her knees and attempted to remove the lid. During her attempt to remove the lid, the cup of coffee estimated to be between 180 to 190 degrees spilled into her lap. At the time of the spill, Liebeck was wearing sweatpants, which held the hot coffee next to her skin. This resulted in full thickness burns that extended through her subcutaneous fat, muscle, or bones over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days, undergoing skin grafting and later debridement treatments. She was disabled for two years and has permanent scars. Unfortunately, Liebeck was not the first to encounter burns because of the temperature of McDonald’s coffee. Between 1982 and 1992, McDonald’s received over 700 claims regarding burns, some of which were third degree burns. These claims cost McDonald’s over $500,000. Dr. P. Robert Knaff, McDonald’s human factors engineer testified the number of burns due to coffee were “statistically insignificant” when compared to the billions of cups of coffee sold on an annual basis. During the trial, a McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that they enforced a company policy to serve all coffee at 185 degrees, give or take five degrees. The quality assurance manager also admitted, “coffee at that temperature was not “fit for consumption because it would cause scalding injuries to the mouth and throat if drank by the consumer.” McDonald’s decision to serve coffee at these temperatures was a result of a recommendation from coffee consultants and industry groups that claimed high temperatures were needed to extract the full flavor during brewing. McDonald’s operations and training manual stated coffee was to be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees for optimal taste (Cain, 2007). Liebeck informed McDonald’s of her injuries and requested the company pay her medical bill totaling approximately $11,000, which McDonald’s refused. Liebeck retained Morgan Reed as her attorney. In a second attempt for compensation, Liebeck requested $90,000 for medical expenses, pain and suffering. McDonald’s countered with an offer of $800. In 1993, Liebeck sued McDonald’s alleging the coffee she purchased was defective, specifically citing excessive heat and inadequate warnings. She requested punitive damages based on the allegations that McDonald’s has acted with conscious indifference for the safety of its customers. Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle the case on her behalf for $300,000 prior to trial. A mediator recommended McDonald’s settle the case for $225,000 just before the trial began but once again, they refused. The case went to trial. The jury deliberated for seven days before finding McDonald’s guilty of breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness and particular purposes and product defect. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages due to reckless, malicious, willful and wanton conduct. Liebeck’s compensatory damages were reduced to $160,000 because the jury felt she was 20 percent at fault for her injuries and her punitive damages reduced to $480,000 for a total of $640,000. Ultimately, the judge ordered Liebeck and McDonald’s into a settlement case, which remains confidential (Cain, 2007). In the civil case of Pearson v. Soo Chung, Jin Chung and their son Ki, Roy L. Pearson, Jr. alleged the Chung’s owners and operators of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C. lost a pair of trousers that accompanied his Hickey Freeman suit purchased at Saks Fifth Avenue. Pearson an attorney had been patronizing Custom Cleaners since October 1999. Custom Cleaners had two signs on the premises “satisfaction guaranteed” and “same day service”. On May 6, 2005, Pearson was to start a new position as administrative judge with the government that required him to wear a suit. As a result, he took several pairs of pants over the course of a couple of days to Custom Cleaners for alterations one at a time. On April 30, 2005, he dropped of a pair of pants to have the waist let out and scheduled a pick up for May 5, 2005. He dropped off another pair of pants on May 3, 2005 for pick up on May 5, 2005. These pants were Hickey Freeman grey in color and with three belt loops very close together on each side of the front waistband of the pants. Pearson returned to pick up his pants and was informed they were not complete. He then informed Soo it would cost $1,000 to replace the pants. The Chungs offered a pair of altered grey pants to Pearson on May 14, 2005. These pants had the same unique belt loops as the pants he originally submitted; the pants’ measurements were identical to the measurements he requested for the alteration; and, the tag number on the pants matched his receipt. Soo Chung testified the pants were late because they were mistakenly sent to their other store. Pearson informed Soo the pants were not his. However, Soo insisted the pants were his. Pearson testified it was at that time he decided the Chungs were not going to compensate him for his pants. He prepared and sent individual letters of demand to the Chungs along with provisions of the Consumer Protection Procedures Acts (CPPA) detailing the provisions for triple damages. The Chungs requested that this matter be dismissed. However, the judge decided that this case should go to trial because, there were two items in dispute: whether the grey pants offered to Pearson were his and, whether the signage that hung in Custom Cleaners was misleading. In the March 2007 formal Pretrial Statement, Mr. Pearson claimed $67,292,000 in damages. On May 30, 2007, Mr. Pearson reduced his claim to over $54,000,000. On June 12, 2007, the trial began based on common law fraud and CPPA. Pearson alleged various claims in his lawsuit, including: the Chungs misled him, in that they lost his pants and attempted to give him another pair of pants that did not belong to him; and, that certain signs in Custom Cleaners reading “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” were misleading. On June 25, 2007, the District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled in favor of Custom Cleaners, rejecting Pearson’s claim that the “satisfaction guaranteed” and “same day service” sign constituted common law fraud and a violation of various provisions of the CPPA. In the court’s opinion, the signs were not misleading. The judge also found that Pearson failed to prove the Chungs lost his pants. On July 11, 2007, Pearson made a motion to the DC Court of Appeals for reconsideration in the trial because he thought the judge failed to address his claims. On August 14, 2007, the DC Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ruled that Pearson’s claims had no merit. After spending thousands of dollars in legal fees, the Chungs closed two of its three stores. The evidence presented in the McDonald’s case substantially supported Liebeck’s allegations. During the trial, there was expert witness testimony from various McDonald’s managers that confirmed the coffee sold at McDonald’s was inconsumable at time of purchase due to its temperature. In addition, to expert testimony McDonald’s had already settled similar previous cases involving individuals burnt by their coffee. However, the evidence presented in the Custom Cleaners case was intangible. Pearson failed to prove the trousers offered to him by the Chungs were not his and the signs posted in the store were misleading.
What are the issues? The issues of the McDonald’s case revolve around their premeditated negligence of product liability. Was McDonald’s liable for the injuries Liebeck suffered due to the coffee that spilled in her lap? Why did McDonald’s knowingly serve its coffee at temperatures they knew could cause burns? Why did McDonald’s not provide adequate warning regarding the temperature of its coffee to customers? In the Custom Cleaners case, the issues revolved around the perception of satisfaction guaranteed, same day service and if in fact, the Chungs lost Pearson’s grey trousers. Was Custom Cleaners liable for meeting Pearson perception of “satisfaction guaranteed?” Did Custom Cleaners violate the CPPA of the District of Columbia? Did the Chung’s lose Pearson’s Hickey Freeman trousers he purchased from Saks Fifth Avenue? Did the Chungs attempt to give Pearson someone else’s pants?
What law applies? In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, negligence, strict liability in tort, and breach of warranty (Bagley, 2010, p. 337) laws apply. McDonald’s was negligent in informing customers that their coffee was to hot therefore not ready for immediate consumption upon purchase. They violated strict liability in tort because Liebeck’s injuries were a result of the unreasonable high temperatures of McDonald’s coffee. Due to the substantial difference in temperature in time of pouring the coffee until presented to customer, McDonald’s violated the breach of warranty product liability by serving customers coffee that was not ready for consumption (Bagely, 2010, p. 337). Based on the laws presented in the textbook in the case of Pearson v. Chungs the res ipsa loquitur (Bagley, 2010, p. 306) and negligence (Bagley, 2010, p. 303) laws apply. Res ispa loquitur involves a breach of duty and indirect causation, when an accident has occurred due to someone’s negligence. This law applies because the Chungs were the instrumental parties involved in the claim. Secondly, the trousers would not have been misplaced if the Chungs were not negligent. Finally, Pearson was not negligent in the dropping off his pants and retaining the receipt for services (Bagley, 2010, p. 306). Custom Cleaners had a duty to Pearson to complete the alterations and return his pants. The Chungs breached this duty when they did not return Pearson’s pants on the agreed upon return date (Bagley, 2010, p. 303). Pearson was not able to wear his pants during the first couple of days as administrative judge because the Chungs misplaced his pants causing him emotional distress (Pearson v. Chung, 2007).
What did the judge and/or jury decide? In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, the jury found in favor of Liebeck. They found McDonald’s liable on the claims of product defect, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The jury decided that while the injuries sustained by Liebeck deserved compensation she was 20 percent liable for her injuries; as a result, they reduced her award from $200,000 to $160,000. The jury also awarded Liebeck 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages based on its finding of reckless, malicious, and wanton conduct. Despite the juries generosity Judge Scott ordered Liebeck and McDonald’s into a post verdict settlement, which resulted in an undisclosed confidential amount (Cain, 2007, p. 6). The judge rejected Pearson’s claims that the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign constituted common law fraud and violation of various provisions of the CPPA and that it provided customers with an unconditional level of satisfaction regardless of reasonableness. As Pearson failed to prove, the Chungs did not intend to honor the sign. The judge also denied Pearson’s CPPA claim regarding a violation of “same day” service citing Pearson did not provide any evidence that the cleaners did not make same day services available. Finally, the judge found in favor of the defendants citing Pearson did not provide evidence to support his claim that the Chungs lost his pants. The judge presiding over Pearson’s appellant case denied his appeal (Pearson v. Chung, 2007).
Did the judge and/or jury make an appropriate decision? Why or why not? In the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, I believe the jury made the appropriate decision in awarding her $160,000 compensatory damages and 2.7 million dollars punitive because McDonald’s knowingly showed a lack of regard for its customers. However, I do not believe the judge’s decision to reduced the punitive damages to $480,000 was appropriate. I disagree with the judge’s decision because Liebeck was able to provide a burden of proof. The jury already took into account a comparative negligence, which resulted in a 20 percent reduction in compensatory damages. I am in agreement with the judge’s decision in the Pearson case. Pearson neglected to provide any proof that the Chungs did not take efforts to compensate him for his pants nor did he provide proof their signage was misleading. Pearson’s perception of satisfaction guaranteed was not consistent with that of reasonable individuals and did not constitute an unfair trade practice under the CPPA.

Works Cited
Bagley, C. & Savage, D. W., (2010). Managers and the legal environment: Strategies for the 21st centrury (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Southwestern-Cengage Learning
Board of Governors District of Columbia Bar. (2006) District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct No. M-223-05.
Cain, K. (Fall 2007). And Now, the Rest of the Story...About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit. Journal of Consumer and Commercial Law , 14-19. Retrieved from: http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/JCCL_V11N1_Fall07.html
Frivolous. 2010. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frivolous
Pearson v. Chung, No. 07-CV-872, 2008 DC Court of App 961 A.2d 1067, Lexus 486 (E.D. Pa Oct 22, 2008)
Pearson v. Chung, Docket No. 05 CA 4302 B. (DC Superior Court 2007)
Liebeck’s v. McDonald’s Rest., P.T.S. Inc. and McDonald’s International, Inc. No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist.Ct. August 18, 1994).