The case of Pearson

During the initial proceedings, Liebeck sought a settlement from McDonald’s Corporation in the sum of US $20,000. 00. This amount was meant to cover the medical expenses from the treatment and the grafting procedure. The real amount, however, only totaled US $11,000. 00 and McDonald’s only offered to pay US $800. 00 (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P. T. S. , Inc. ). This led to the lawsuit in a New Mexico District Court wherein it was alleged that McDonald’s was guilty of “gross negligence” in its act of selling coffee that was “unreasonably dangerous” and “defectively manufactured.

”(Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P. T. S. , Inc. )  During the pretrial, counsel for the complainant tried to reach a settlement with McDonald’s Corporation but was unable to reach an agreement with the company. ISSUE: 1. ) The first issue concerns the liability of McDonald’s under Tort Laws and State Laws for the injury that was suffered by Stelle Liebeck from the coffee burns 2. ) The second issue is with regard to the character of the suit as a harassment suit meant merely to draw more money from McDonald’s RULING:

In ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, the Court noted that McDonald’s was given several opportunities to settle the claims . The ruling was based on the evidence presented by counsel for the complainant which revealed that the operating procedures of McDonald’s Corporation required the coffee to be served at dangerously hot temperatures that would cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds (Bagley and Savage, 2006). It was also shown that other similar establishments in the fast food industry served the coffee at much lower temperatures.

McDonald’s, on the other hand, contended that the intent of keeping the coffee at a high temperature was because several customers preferred to buy the coffee and travel long distances while having relatively warm coffee (Bagley and Savage, 2006). It was shown, however, during the course of the trial that the research of McDonald’s revealed otherwise. The Court decided that McDonald’s was sufficiently negligent in this case because other documents that were recovered from McDonald's Corporation revealed that from the period of 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee.

It was also shown that the Corporation had settled other claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. The Jury decided that using the principle of comparative negligence, McDonald’s can be considered as faulted for eighty percent (80%) of the injury that was caused while Liebeck was twenty percent (20%) negligent for the accident (Weiss, 2005). 

This led the Jury to award Liebeck US $200,000. 00 in compensatory damages, initially, since the award was reduced to US $160,000.00. Punitive Damages were also awarded in the amount of US $480,000. 00. The case of Pearson v Chung is considered as one of the “frivolous” cases that have followed in the wake of the ruling of the court in Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants (Bagley and Savage, 2006). The difference in this case is that it involves a larger settlement amount for an act which, as stated by the court, did not amount to any personal injury to the person of the complainant.

Source: law aspect