It’s one of those cases that just makes you shake your head. It’s also one of those cases that advocates of tort deformation like to trot out as proof that the system is rotten, lawsuits are out of control, and the entire kit and caboodle should be “reformed.” In fact, the system is not out of control. The system is working in the strange case of Roy Pearson and his pants, a case which actually reveals a lot more about the system, and how it really works, than the advocates of tort reform want you to know.
Roy Pearson is a guy who took his pants to his neighborhood dry cleaners for alterations. First, the cleaners lost, or at least misplaced, his pants. Later the cleaners produced a pair of pants that it said was Pearson’s, but Pearson denied that they were his.
It’s not clear how or why things got out of hand. it rarely is in cases like this. It seems that Pearson demanded that the cleaners pay for a new suit. The cleaners must have refused, because one thing led to another, and soon they were in litigation. Big time.
Suffice it to say that the dry cleaners probably regrets not buying Pearson a new suit. It eventually offered him much more to settle the case, first $3,000, then $4,600, and then amazingly, $12,000. By this time, however, Pearson had figured that the cleaners owed him even more, a lot more. $67,280,000 more, to be exact.
How does a pair of pants lead to millions of dollars in damages? I call it Rube Goldberg logic. Pearson apparently can’t go to this dry cleaners anymore, and since there is no other cleaners within walking distance of his home, Goldberg, who does not own a car, will have to buy one. The cleaners also had a sign in the store that read “satisfaction guaranteed,” which Pearson claims is fraudulent advertising, and he seeks a daily penalty of $1,500 against each of the store’s three owners. Then he decided that his case should be a class action on behalf of all dry cleaning customers against all dry cleaning establishments, and so forth.
Pearson will have his day in court soon, in June. I’m predicting that things won’t turn out too well for Pearson, at least in relation to his expectations. It’s a good bet he won’t do as well as the $12,000 he was offered.
So what’s going on here? Doesn’t a case like this show that the system is broken and needs fixing? No. Not at all. Remember that what has made the news here are the outlandishness of Pearson’s claims, not what he actually got. This is not a story about the legal system, but about a nut named Pearson. Most people wouldn’t take things to the extremes that Pearson has, because most people don’t have the time or the inclination to make a legal mountain out of a dry cleaning moehill. Pearson is probably one of those people who just can’t let something pass, and I suspect that the owner of the dry cleaning store has a stubborn streak as well.
I think Pearson should have taken the $12,000 and quit while he was ahead. That’s a lot of money for a pair of pants, even considering the profound bad feelings that seem to have developed between him and the cleaners. His intransigence just may backfire on him, as the dry cleaners has filed an offer of judgment. What this means is that if Pearson doesn’t get more at trial than the amount offered, he has to pay the costs of the dry cleaner, which may include their attorneys’ fees.
I haven’t told you the part of this whole story that grabs me the most. It’s about Pearson. He’s a lawyer. Not any old lawyer, but also a judge, an adminstrative law judge. That’s what makes this case the anti-poster child of tort deformation. Why? Because one of the key aims of tort deformation is to do away with jury trials. Replace jury trials with what? Would you believe administrative law judges?
How would you like Roy Pearson to decide your case?