Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The man who sued his dry-cleaner for $65,465,500

Diatribe said:
Even if the coffee hadn't had a lid at all, coffee is hot, you don't put it between your legs while driving. And besides, who decides at what temperature coffee is served? You should KNOW coffee is hot and can burn you.
Click to expand...

The car was stopped, the cup was flimsy, McDonald's had a history of complaints about the temperature they had chosen to ignore, and the severity of the burns led to the lawsuit/rulings. It's not as simple as an idiot spilling coffee while driving and experiencing some discomfort.
 
etoiles said:
great, and this guy is a judge?! :eek:
Click to expand...
I witnessed a lawyer walk out in front of a van in London which didn't quite stop in time and lightly hit him. Anyone normal would have been embarrassed and gone on their way, but the lawyer immediately went red in the face and started screaming at the van driver all number of obscenities, until the van driver got out and smacked him one, right in the face, in the middle of the street. So lawyer immediately starts trying to collect names and addresses from bystanders as witnesses to an assault. Everybody just told him to stop being an arse, and that he walked out in front of the van, but he wouldn't have it.

There's something about a career in law that does that to people. The higher up the chain they go, the more they believe that they are 100% right at all times. I wish Mr. Chung every success in fighting this nonsense and hope the Judge gets to learn some humility.
 
Saw this on the local news. Hopefully it goes well for the cleaners and the man be cursed with man-eating pants- or something. :)
 
Hmm, I think I'd try to focus more on the "satisfaction guaranteed" sign, and then on the "same day service" sign. Which is what I think he did, although he went nukin' crzy!$$$!! on the compensation for each day. I might be apt to charge them the cost of the dry cleaning for every day… so like $11 x 120 days = $1,320. And I don't see how he would be suing them personally…

$12,000 sounds about right… ;) :D
 
There was an excellent editorial in the Washington Post today:

IS THERE anything more absurd than someone pursuing a $65 million lawsuit over a lost pair of pants? Well, how about this same person being in a position to adjudicate the cases of other people? Or that there's a chance of his getting a new 10-year term as judge?

A panel of four D.C. officials is considering the reappointment of administrative law judge Roy L. Pearson Jr. in light of devastating publicity about a court case he brought. As reported by Post columnist Marc Fisher, Mr. Pearson wants his local dry cleaner to pay him millions of dollars for the "mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort" caused by the loss of his pants as well as for his legal costs. The unfortunate people being sued by Mr. Pearson say that they offered reimbursement, tried to settle and even ended up finding what they believe are the pants. But Mr. Pearson persisted with his outrageous demands, and the owners of Custom Cleaners say they incurred staggering legal bills. A trial is set for next month; we hope a judge will finally inject some sense into proceedings that have already taken ludicrous amounts of time.

OP-ED COLUMNISTS
Columnist Biographies, Past Columns and RSS Feeds
The Editorialist
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Obscure Store and Reading Room
Obscure Store and Reading Room

Full List of Blogs (2 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

That Mr. Pearson was able to persist in such a case raises questions about D.C. consumer protection laws. The American Tort Reform Association said that city law, while well intentioned, is so loosely worded that it allows abuse. D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer and the D.C. Council need to take a look.

Equally serious is whether Mr. Pearson should continue in his $100,512 job adjudicating alleged civil infractions of D.C. rules. The case raises serious questions about his judgment and temperament. Moreover, this is not the first case involving Mr. Pearson that has raised such questions. The Virginia Court of Appeals, in a 2005 review of Mr. Pearson's divorce proceedings, upheld findings that he created "unnecessary litigation" in a relatively simple case and was responsible for "excessive driving up" of legal costs.

As the four-member judicial tenure commission considers another term for Mr. Pearson, it should think back to why the Office of Administrative Hearings was created in the first place: to increase public confidence in the system of administrative justice.
Click to expand...

It is sad that there are a few attorneys out there (at least here in the US) with attitudes that seem to seem to be exhibited in this case - and that gives attorneys that are hard working conscientious a bad name.

As the editorial points out Mr. Pearson had findings against him in his divorce about " "unnecessary litigation" in a relatively simple case and was responsible for "excessive driving up" of legal costs.".

The difficult part of this story for many here in the local area is what seems to be abuse of "power" being used by Mr. Pearson. As an attorney he can spend as much time as he wants on this case, at little if no cost - except for clients that he might not be able to assist while he pursues his own case against the cleaners.

A normal citizen could also have filed an identical lawsuit against the cleaners finding an attorney that would work on the basis of recovery. Yet that attorney would not have (at least in IMO and many others it seems) taken it to the excess that Mr. Pearson feels that his missing pants are worth.

In water cooler talk here in the DC area, there does seem to be a resentment of attorneys being able to represent themselves in civil damages cases. And in some ways there is admiration for the cleaners to spend what they have so far in defending themselves against this lawsuit.

As much as I dislike Judge Judy, I want her to hear and settle this case. I have hopes that she at least has some common sense.....
 
mac 2005 said:
At the risk of being labeled a Chauvinist, I won't excuse the jingoism. An example to the rule is just that, an example. If a country has a legal system predicated on the notion that every person is entitled to his/her day in court, then there will be people who take advantage of the system. The fault, in this case, rests with the person filing the lawsuit and does not serve as an indictment of the American legal system.

Finally, "Only in ..." has to be the most open-ended, over-used statement of all time. You can pretty much fill in the blank, as with most doctor/lawyer jokes.
Click to expand...

Nope, this time it really is a case of Only in the USA.

In almost every other country with law based on the British system, the Court can assess costs against the losing party in the lawsuit (Loser Pay). So if you sue me for no reason in Canada and lose, not only don't you win your claim, but the judge can 'fine' you the cost of MY lawyers. This is a significant DIS-incentive for frivolous lawsuits, because there is a downside. It also means that I am less likely to be financially ruined by defending myself successfully, so as a defendant I am less likely to cave in and settle (even if I am blameless) for fear of the cost of defence.

In the US, there isn't this disincentive, so it's open season for plaintiffs, and lawyers who push suits on contingency (that is, the lawyer doesn't charge the plaintiff for their services, but does get a large percentage of any award). So there is a sub-culture of lawyers who play Lawsuit Lottery looking for the big payoff. In some countries contingent fees are not permitted.

Also, with virtually unlimited punitive damages for civil cases in many states in the USA (unlike other countries), the payoff from suing an entity with deep pockets can be huge. Many countries (and some states) limit or forbid punitive or exemplary awards in contract and civil cases.

http://www.overlawyered.com/
 
thequicksilver said:
So frivolous that Apple Corps won two of the three cases. Nice example…
Click to expand...

Winning a lawsuit does not equate to being right, just as being declared "not guilty" does not equate to being "innocent."

To the point of Apple v. Apple, is it really logical to think there was confusion in the marketplace.

Hypothetical consumer No. 1: Where's my receipt? I bought this copy of "Meet the Beatles," and it doesn't seem able to connect to the Internet or run spreadsheets.

Hypothetical consumer No. 2: Hey! What gives. I bought this MacBook computer, and "Ticket to Ride" doesn't appear anywhere. For $1,499, this "record" should have all of the Beatles songs.
 
atszyman said:
The car was stopped, the cup was flimsy, McDonald's had a history of complaints about the temperature they had chosen to ignore, and the severity of the burns led to the lawsuit/rulings. It's not as simple as an idiot spilling coffee while driving and experiencing some discomfort.
Click to expand...

Also, one major reason for the high award the jury gave is that the McDonald's lawyer was a real jerk. Because of where the coffee spilled, the woman ended up with some pretty bad burns in her private parts. In arguing for a low damages figure, the McDonald's lawyer argued that because she was elderly, she had no use for that part of her body anyways. Part of the reason why the jury gave such a high award is that they were outraged by the McDonald's lawyer's comments...
 
Diatribe said:
Well, unfortunately often enough people succeed with frivolous lawsuits. Just think of the woman that burned her legs with hot coffee because of her own stupidity and got millions from McDonalds...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Please tell us about that case. Never heard of it. I have heard that McDonalds has paid compensation to a few hundred people all in all because McDonalds used to serve coffee that was dangerously hot (about 30 degrees hotter than it should be), which turned what should have been a harmless accident into major injuries, and continued with this practice after they had been warned repeatedly of the danger.

So here is your challenge: Find a documented case where someone burned their legs with hot coffee through their own stupidity and got millions from McDonalds. I'd bet that you won't find one.

CanadaRAM said:
Nope, this time it really is a case of Only in the USA.
Click to expand...

Adding to your post, in Germany suing someone for an amount of money means that lawyer fees are set according to that amount; in this case I would say about $1 million for plaintiff, defense and court each. Loser pays. And who is loser is determined by the amount the plaintiff asked for, compared to what he received.

A German judge would probably tell the dry cleaner to refund the payment completely, plus the cost of renting a pair of trousers for the days they were missing, then tell the plaintiff to pay cost for court and lawyers of about $1million each. :p
 
this guy is a complete moron. I hope he loses and has to pay that much to the cleaners and is disbarred. I hope this man doesn't reproduce either.
 
I really hope that the community evaluates there local legal system, since he is a judge.

Re-GD-Dicoulus
 
i have to agree that this is an "only in the US" case,
the absurdity of these law suits is unbelievable!
coffee is meant to be hot, pay attention to that fact!
it's like everyone has suddenly turned into babies that don't
yet know what's hot or not (for example)
"how am i supposed to know that coffee is hot?"
law suit!
i think the problem lies in that there is no human contact
in urban US areas.
instead of calmly discussing with the other party and finding a solution,
you just run to a lawyer to get as much money from them as possible.
you guys have lost your sense of community, no one cares about
the person next to them, only about their own pockets.
i'm not saying this is not the case elsewhere, but when you have the legal
system to support this and precedent of idiots like this judge filing crazy lawsuits, then you know what's gonna happen...
i don't think this represents every american, i hope there are lots of you that do care for the person next to them and like human contact and trying to solve problems by way of discussion...
nevertheless, you must realise that this issue has made its way around the world and has made the u.s. know as the country of the frivolous lawsuit, like someone else said.
not to mention all other things everyone else hates you for.. :)
 
sk3pt1c said:
i have to agree that this is an "only in the US" case,
the absurdity of these law suits is unbelievable!
coffee is meant to be hot, pay attention to that fact!
it's like everyone has suddenly turned into babies that don't
yet know what's hot or not (for example)
"how am i supposed to know that coffee is hot?"
law suit!
i think the problem lies in that there is no human contact
in urban US areas.
instead of calmly discussing with the other party and finding a solution,
you just run to a lawyer to get as much money from them as possible.
you guys have lost your sense of community, no one cares about
the person next to them, only about their own pockets.
i'm not saying this is not the case elsewhere, but when you have the legal
system to support this and precedent of idiots like this judge filing crazy lawsuits, then you know what's gonna happen...
i don't think this represents every american, i hope there are lots of you that do care for the person next to them and like human contact and trying to solve problems by way of discussion...
nevertheless, you must realise that this issue has made its way around the world and has made the u.s. know as the country of the frivolous lawsuit, like someone else said.
not to mention all other things everyone else hates you for.. :)
Click to expand...

Whilst we could endlessly debate about the lack of responsibility or community or whatever in the US, the quick answer to fix all of this is for the US to adopt the loser pays system that we see in Australia (and Canada as CanadaRAM mentioned). People won't file frivolous lawsuits if there is the risk that they will be up for the other party's legal fees if they lose. Companies sometimes also choose to settle suits quickly rather than fight them, even if they have a great case because the cost of all the legal fees means they are better off setlling quickly. A loser pays system will mean that companies can fight the case if they believe it has no merit without fear of huge legal fees.
 
mac 2005 said:
To the point of Apple v. Apple, is it really logical to think there was confusion in the marketplace.
Click to expand...

I get the Beatles and Apple confused all the time.

In fact, one time, I thought I was buying a computer, and I ended up with a $1400 Beatles collection. To add insult to injury, I tried to look at photos on my camera, but I couldn't!

B..B...Beatles? Apple? Are they the same? Oh, my mind hurts! My simple brain can't fully comprehend all of this. Hey look, there's a window. *run run run*....JUMP!!


Hey look, now my family can sue Paul McCartney because of all the confusion!
 
Oh this is reasonable, I know every time I lose a pair of $800 pants I sue for millions and millions.

This reminds me of Gob on Arrested Development when he keeps going on about the price of the suit he's wearing

"Oh yeah, look at me, the guy in a $3000 suit is holding the elevator for a guy who doesn't make that in a month"

And this judge was having these pants taken out, so it's reasonable to assume he's gained some weight recently.

Man this judge must be dead inside. $800 pants, weight gain and obviously too much time on his hands. Sucks to be him
 
CanadaRAM said:
Nope, this time it really is a case of Only in the USA.

In almost every other country with law based on the British system, the Court can assess costs against the losing party in the lawsuit (Loser Pay). So if you sue me for no reason in Canada and lose, not only don't you win your claim, but the judge can 'fine' you the cost of MY lawyers. This is a significant DIS-incentive for frivolous lawsuits, because there is a downside. It also means that I am less likely to be financially ruined by defending myself successfully, so as a defendant I am less likely to cave in and settle (even if I am blameless) for fear of the cost of defence.
Click to expand...

Winning defendants in lawsuits can be awarded court and legal costs in U.S. courts, too. So... what was your word? Nope.
 
CanadaRAM said:
Can be, not are mandated to be -- big difference. Usually, the defendent has to countersue.
Click to expand...

The defendant does not have to countersue. The defendant files a petition with the judge. If he or she determines that a suit is frivolous or a plaintiff is vexatious, then the defendant can be awarded court costs and legal fees. I have seen even this system abused by defendants, so no way would I want it to be mandatory.
 
This case really makes me mad. After all, the cleaners did try to make things right. I get really tired of stupid lawsuits that end up costing the public a ton of money. I read somewhere that a ladder would cost half of what it does if it were not for all the warning stickers that have to put on them and the lawsuits that resulted in such labeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back