Compare and contrast two legal cases
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
The first fact, in this case, is that the coffee that was served at McDonalds had a temperature that was between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. For a long time, the company had known that they had been serving coffee that was twenty to thirty-degree hotter than the coffee that was served in other restaurants. In the previous ten years, the company had been sued over 700 times, but McDonalds had not taken the necessary steps to lower the temperature of the coffee that they served.
The second fact, in this case, was that the plaintiff was a 79-year-old individual who was not driving at the time that the accident occurred. In fact, she was on a passenger seat. The car had been parked in the parking lot by her grandsons so that Stella could add sugar and cream to her coffee. The car did not have any coffee holders, and the dashboard had been slanted. Stella decided to hold the coffee mug by putting it between her knees as she removed the lid. During this process, the cup flipped backwards, thereby dumping the scalding coffee onto her lap. The coffee saturated on the sweat suit that she was wearing.
The third fact is that the plaintiff spent a total of seven days at the hospital. After being released from the hospital, Stella spent three weeks at home where her daughter helped her while still recovering. Initially, the family of Stella asked the restaurant chain to cover the out of pocket expenses of Stella’s expenses, including her daughter’s $2000 that she had lost in wages. The restaurant chain only offered $800.
The fourth fact, in this case, is that the quality control manager at McDonald’s also testified that he knew the risk that the dangerously hot coffee posed, however the company had no intentions or plans to lower the heat or warn their customers regarding the scalding danger posed by the coffee. Furthermore, another employee of McDonalds also testified that they had received more than 700 complaints regarding the issue.
The fifth fact, in this case, is that the restaurant chain refused to raise the compensation that they had provided to be above $800. Stella pursued with her lawsuit and asked for$100 000 that were supposed to be in compensatory damages which included dyer suffering and pain. Additionally, the amount requested is covered for the triple punitive damages, so that the restaurant could comprehend that their coffee was dangerously hot (Haltom and McCann, 2004).
The sixth fact is that the judge who was preceding the case reduced the punitive charges to $640 000 from $2.7 million. The reasoning behind the decision made by the judge was that the amount that was offered was approximately three times and that the case was not a ‘runaway’ case. This means that the amount that was presented was supposed to be appropriate and deter the restaurant from offering the dangerously hot coffee and improve their safety standards.
The seventh fact is that the restaurant chain has not learnt their lessons as there are other individuals who are still suffering the same fate as Stella’s who also have the same injuries.
Facts of the case: Roy L. PEARSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Soo CHUNG, et al., Appellees
The case was brought by Mr. Roy Pearson. The case had three defendants who were Ki Chung, Soo Chung and Jinn Chung. The Chung family were originally from South Korea, and they had immigrated to the United States in 1992. Initially, the Chung family had penned a smaller store that they had named happy cleaners in 1997.during the year 2000, the Chung family were able to open a bigger business that was named custom cleaners of which is the subject of the lawsuit by Mr. Pearson (Carper and McKinsey, 2012)..
According to Mr. Pearson, a pair of pants had been left in the store so that the firm could alter the pants by May 5, 2005. According to the description of the pants that was brought to be altered, the color was grey and that it was unique in that it had a succession of three belts that were very close to waistbands of the pants.
The other fact is that from the instance the Mr. Chung could not meet the initial demand of the amount of money that Mr. Pearson had requested, Mr. Pearson decided to go to court and filed a lawsuit against the Chung family in the District of Columbia district court.
On their defense, the Chung family asserted that the pants that they had provided to Mr. Pearson belonged to Mr. Pearson. Furthermore, the Chung family asserted that the signs that they had placed on their establishment were not misleading. After the trial, the plaintiff offered a $67,292,000 that was later reduced to $54, 000,000.
In 2008, after the Chung family had appealed, the court ruled in favor of the Chung family in that they denied the appeal hat was provided by Mr. Pearson completely. According to the court of the District of Columbia, the court held that Mr. Pearson had no merits of appeal regarding the case that they had provided. After the decision had been made, Mr. Pearson did not choose to appeal the decision that had been made by the court (Carper and McKinsey, 2012).
On the sad side of the story, it was unfortunate that the Chung family were not able to continue with their business as they were forced to close it down due to the cumulative emotional toll and flagging revenues that were as a result of the lawsuit that was provided by Mr. Pearson. Urgently, the Chung Family only operates a small one pick dry cleaning firm that they had operated before they had opened the Custom Cleaners business (Mccallin, 2001).
Issues
The two cases that have been provided above have different issues. The initial case had most of the information reported as being wrong. This is because the allegations that were made by the restaurant against Stella all seemed wrong. Assuring that the accident happened while Stella was driving was wrong. In any case, it is almost impossible to win if the evidence that has been provided is wrong, regardless of the circumstances that the evidence has been provided. The second issue that can be deciphered from the first case is that Mc Donald’s argued that the coffee that they offered to their customers were what the customers required or requested. This has been an absolute assumption since not all the people that visit the restaurant required that the coffee was hot. The punitive damages that the court provided to the restaurant business meant that the idea of the punitive damages was to deter, but the restaurant continued anyway to provide the same with coffee to their clients. This means that the impact of the lawsuit that was provided by Stella did not serve its intended purpose as the company was not in any way deterred. From this case, the final settlement that was conducted was out go court. This means that the amount of money that the restaurant paid the plaintiff cannot be correctly named as the payments that were paid were made in secret. The settlement was done in secret and that the public does not have any information about the details. It has to be noted that the idea of having sec5et settlements after the public has been involved in the litigation process should not be condoned. This is because due to the public interest, especially after the public have generated much interest, the need to know what happened has to be considered (Kauffman, 2013).
In the second case, some of the issues that one has to comprehend are that the pants that were offered back to the client were the same pants that the client had provided. This is only due to the fact that the signs that had been placed on the establishment that meant that there was a need to provide the correct information regardless of the duration that the cloth could take to be repaired. It is fittingly acceptable to agree that the signs that had been placed on the Custom Cleaners firm were correctly misleading. This is because the idea that satisfaction was guaranteed was not true. Mr. Parson had not been guaranteed his satisfaction. The other concept is that the sign that the delivery of theservice3 was done is the same day was wrong. In fact, Mr. Pearson received his pants after a period of three days. This is not in accordance with the notion of same day delivery (Feinman, 2014).
Laws that apply
The laws that apply in both of the cases is common law fraud. In the first case, the restaurant business had the information that the coffee that they served was dangerously hot, and yet they proceeded with serving the dangerously hot coffee. In the second case, the; law that was broken was that the signs that had been placed on the establishment meant that the service that was provided was satisfaction guaranteed. Additionally, the delivery of the service was supposed to be a same day delivery service and this had not been provided by the company. This means that laws that were broken were the common laws, and this can be considered as common law fraud laws.
The decision that the judges or the jury were as follows. In the initial case, the decision by the court was ultimately made in a secret settlement. This means that the details of the settlement have not been made to the public. Hoverer, the idea that the court decided to award Stella with some amount of money since there was an instance that the court felt that it was necessary. Additionally, the different appeals that were made, it difficult for the jury to comprehend the case as there must be an individual who has been wronged. The idea that the pants that were provided by Custom Cleaners were not the correct pants could be irrefutable. It is possible that the company provides different services. However, it is the duration that the company took in ensuring that the pants that they provided to the client was done. If the pants had been provided in the correct time that had been promised and that the signs that had been placed in the establishment were not there, then the ability of the plaintiff to sue the department could have been removed.
The judge and jury in the different cases made the correct decisions based on the facts that had been provided to them. The applicable laws that were used to judge the case were legal. Some of the ethical issues that have to be considered in this case that there is need to comprehend the need of providing the correct information based on the facts that one has. Some of the advice that may be given to the owners to the business owners is that there is a need to provide the correct information to customers regardless of the circumstances that the customers may find themselves in. The two cases can be considered as being frivolous due to the nature that they are presented.
In the second case, some of the issues that one has to comprehend are that the pants that were offered back to the client were the same pants that the client had provided. The case was brought by Mr. Roy Pearson. The case had three defendants who were Ki Chung, Soo Chung and Jinn Chung. The laws that apply in both of the cases is common law fraud. The laws that apply in both of the cases is common law fraud. In the first case, the restaurant business had the information that the coffee that they served was dangerously hot, and yet they proceeded with serving the dangerously hot coffee. In the second case, the; law that was broken was that the signs that had been placed on the establishment meant that the service that was provided was satisfaction guaranteed. Additionally, the delivery of the service was supposed to be a same day delivery service and this had not been provided by the company.
The other major aspect that the owners of the businesses could have had is to institute rules and disclaimer adverts in their premises that prevent the company from future lawsuits. As one walks into the business establishments, the disclaimer posters or warning signs have to be displayed for all to see. The printing material for all the warning sings should be legible. This ensures that the company has some sort of insurance against lawsuits. The other option that the companies or establishments could have had was t make sure that the products that they served in the case of McDonald’s restaurant were according to the specifications that had been provided or are provided by law. The establishment had received more than 700 claims and they had not acted on those claims. It is imperative that the company acts on all complaints before they bring a negative impact on the company.
In the case of the lawsuit that was brought against Custom Cleaners, the fact that there were signs that were misinforming clients based on the time of the delivery of the products had been completed. The fact that there were signs that depicted that the service could be done in one day was misleading. All these signs have to me removed.
References
Carper, D. L., & McKinsey, J. A. (2012). Understanding the law. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Kauffman, K. D. (2013). Legal ethics. Albany, N.Y: Delmar.
Feinman, J. M. (2014). Law 101.
Haltom, W., & McCann, M. W. (2004). Distorting the law: Politics, media, and the litigation crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mccallin, A. (2001). Interdisciplinary practice – a matter of teamwork: an integrated literature review. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 10 (4), 419-428.
Carper, D. L., & McKinsey, J. A. (2012). Understanding the law. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
