FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT

Frivolous lawsuit

Frivolous lawsuit

Introduction

McDonald's coffee

One of the most infamous civil lawsuits of the late 20th century was based on a cup of McDonald's coffee. Advocates for accident victims and consumer groups said that this case showed how well the legal system protects people from uncaring corporations that put profits over people. On the other hand, defenders of American business complained that this case proved that American juries were out of control, and that our civil justice system encouraged people to file frivolous lawsuits that actually cost consumers millions of dollars each year.

The McDonald's case — Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, No. CV-93-02419, 1995 (N.M. Dist., Aug. 18, 1994) — provides a useful example of how the legal process has evolved to protect the rights of individual plaintiffs as well as the corporations they sue. Accident victims get their “day in court,” the chance to seek compensation even from powerful business interests. Corporations have many times more money than the people who sue them, and the legal system provides layers of protection from excessive verdicts from jurors who believe that big businesses can easily afford any award against them.

Pearson v. Chung

Pearson v. Chung is an American civil court case initiated in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., a District of Columbia administrative law judge, following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store. The case drew international attention when it went to trial in 2007 and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States(Emil, 2008).

Frivolous Lawsuit

One of the catch phrases of tort reformers is “frivolous lawsuits” - a lawsuit that has no legal basis, or is so petty that the suit isn't justified. Often, tort reformers cite high profile cases, such as the McDonalds coffee case to try and show that the court system is “broken” and that “runaway juries” routinely award ridiculously large verdicts in frivolous cases.

Tort reformers argue that these “frivolous lawsuits” are “clogging the courts” and cost honest, taxpaying citizens billions of dollars every year. They further claim that the only way to stop “frivolous lawsuits” is to pass legislation that will make it more difficult to file a “frivolous lawsuit.”

What tort reformers don't tell you is that the legal system already has three safety mechanisms in place to prevent, dismiss, and correct “frivolous lawsuits” and “runaway jury verdicts.” The first mechanism, the contingent-fee agreement, prevents frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.

Case Analysis

McDonald's coffee

Everybody has heard the media version of the McDonalds hot coffee case but nobody seems to have heard the ...