Roy “Pants” Pearson, who infamously sued a dry cleaner for a lost pair of pants for $65M, only to reduce it later to $54M, and still managed to lose for some reason, has lost again. This loss was in the US Court of Appeals regarding the loss of his job. He claimed he was denied reappointment because of his complaints about the peer review system in place at the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. You can read more details here: “Pants Judge” Pearson Loses Appeal in D.C. Circuit.

While it’s tempting to crack jokes and endlessly take rhetorical spins on pants suits and whatnot — I leave the to Kevin Underhill, see Judge Who Lost Pants Forced to Rely on Briefs — the fact is that this is a very serious matter. Here is why:

This was a classic frivolous case, or at least, the damages claim was frivolous. But the real problem is that outlier suits like this — those wacko ones that we read in the press — are then used to argue for tort “reform.” It has long been the strategy of those that wish to dismantle the civil justice system by using such outliers to deprive justice to those with meritorious claims.

Previously:

Pants Lawsuit Ends in Victory for Dry Cleaners (6/25/07)

Trial Lawyer Group Makes Ethics Charge In Dry Cleaning Case (5/9/07)

All Hemmed Up Over My Pants Rant (Kia Franklin @ Tort Deform (6/19/07)

Another victory for the tort “reform” movement. Albert Freed wanted to sue Hanes because of a claim that his underwear gaped open and hurt his penis (and he didn’t do anything about it). It’s notable that he represented himself, since apparently no lawyer would have been moronic enough to touch it. (Not the plaintiff–>>)

This spectacularly stupid lawsuit (coming to us by way of Above the Law, where there will no doubt be abundant commentary that is NSFW) had its origins in a two week vacation to Hawaii, and new briefs that the plaintiff’s wife bought for him. He testified that they gaped open at the fly, that this was apparent to him on the second day of the trip, that he got an abrasion, that he did nothing about it for two week, that he didn’t even look at himself, and that some topical ointment cleared the problem up in a day or two when he got home. He brought suit for defectively manufactured briefs.

Previously I’d written about Roy “Pants” Pearson and his $54 million case against a dry cleaner for his lost trousers. OK, pretty much everyone in the world had written about that one. But Freed can now take his place beside Pearson in the pantheon of public humiliation over ill-considered lawsuits. Pearson probably still has the lead here based on the fact that he is an attorney, but still, Freed has given him a run for his money.

Why did Freed do this? I’m going to take a shot at this here: He won the trip as a reward for selling $20,000 of diet products. Yet he weighed 280-290 pounds. Perhaps he thought he could sell anything to anyone.

Why do tort “reformers” like these kinds of nutty suits? Because the corporate-run movement is based on anecdotes and not empirical evidence. If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce trots out a few losers like this, then they think they can make headway into closing the courthouse doors to legitimate suits. It is rare suits like this that make news, not the legitimate suits that are “ordinary” by comparison and that make up the bulk of the cases in the courthouse.

On a final note, you really have to read footnote 3 to the opinion, about the lawyer sitting in the gallery “minding his own business” who was suddenly called as an expert witness, since he was the only male available that was watching the proceedings that was not involved.This was a “prominent” local defense lawyer who was “conscripted” into the proceedings to talk about “penile discomfort.” The court declined to name him, but acknowledged the lawyer was a “good sport” about it.
Opinion via ATL:/Freed-v-Hanes.pdf

Links to this post:

Handling a Products Liability Case on the Fly
I must confess I have never spent a lot of time thinking about men’s underwear. Thus, it never crossed my mind that a products liability case could arise from men’s underwear of any type. Women’s underwear are different. …

posted by [email protected] (John Day) @ October 26, 2009 5:46 AM

Former administrative judge Roy “Pants” Pearson, who infamously brought a $67M lawsuit against a dry cleaner for allegedly losing a pair of trousers, has lost his bid for a new trial. That he subsequently lowered his demand to only $54M didn’t seem to matter (Previously: Pants Lawsuit Ends in Victory for Dry Cleaners.)

Covered extensively up down and sideways by every writer with a keyboard, the D.C. Court of Appeals has now weighed in to reject the appeal.

Pearson’s claim, briefly summarized by the Court in a 23-page opinion, was:

Pearson’s claims regarding the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign are premised on his interpretation that the sign is an unconditional and unlimited warranty of satisfaction to the customer as determined solely by the customer, without regard to the facts or to any notion of reasonableness — a position he has consistently advocated both in the trial court and on appeal…

[Pearson] argued unambiguously that “[a]s a consequence of offering an unconditional guarantee of satisfaction a merchant is required to satisfy a consumer’s demand for lawful compensation (for example, for any amount of money). (emphasis added by Court of Appeals, at page 13 of decision)

The trial court, said the appellate bench, showed “basic common sense” to reject the unlimited claims of Pearson and that Pearson’s fraud claim “defies logic.”

The court’s opinion is rather matter-of-fact about the case, with a long recitation of the facts and extensive citation to case law. There are no gratuitous comments about the ludicrous nature of the demand, other than the legal analysis of it being without basis, and no discussion of sanctions.

The court may realize that such sanctions and commentary are unnecessary since, in the court of public opinion, Pearson has been tried and convicted and there was nothing new to add.

The decision is here, courtesy of How Appealing: Pearson-v-Chung.pdf