talkpolitics | Tort reform - "catapult the propaganda" (George Bush)

Entry tags:

Tort reform - "catapult the propaganda" (George Bush)

The documentary shows quite clearly that many of the "citizens for tort reform groups" are nothing but astroturf organizations funded in large part by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and or even private companies such as R. J. Reynolds (Karl Rove worked as a lobbyist for RJR in Texas and was the main political force for Texas tort reform). You have a very powerful business industry using large amounts of money to tilt the legal system their way.

Everyone (or most everyone) knows the story about the 79 year old woman (Stella Liebeck) who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and then sued for millions. The case became a laughing matter for many comics and was the seemingly start of a national debate on preventing "frivolous" lawsuits where obviously the person filing was looking for "jack-pot justice." That's the PR the business community wanted you to believe. The realty of the case was a lot nuanced than that.

The official trailer for Hot Coffee

The documentary starts off with the public's perceptions about the case, and it's all the typical thing: a woman was looking to cash in looking for millions at McDonald's expense, despite her own responsibility. What you discover is that after having 3rd degree burns over her nearly 20 percent of her body (pelvis, thighs, hips and waist area - TRIGGER WARNING photo 1 of her injuries and and photo 2 ). Ms. Libseck had to endure surgeries as well as extremely painful skin grafting: the family wrote to McDonald's telling them about the issue with their coffee being too hot. The family asked that the medical expenses be covered up to that point (about 10,000.00). McDonald's refused and offered the family 800.00 The case went to trial, and during the discovery process, McDonald's own internal documentation showed coffee was to be kept at between 180 - 190 degrees (more than a few seconds contact with skin would cause 3rd degree burns and significant internal damage if drank to fast). But more telling: memos and reports indicated that over 400 previous incidents of injured customers from the coffee had occurred, and McDonald's made no efforts to change their policies in serving hot liquids. A jury found Ms. Libseck 20 percent responsible for her injuries and awarded her 200,000 in compensatory damages (meant to cover costs of medical procedures, physical therapy, nursing care, etc). The jury then awarded her 2.7 million in punitive damages (the figure was arrived at by the jury using sales figures that showed McDonald's earns 1.5 million dollars a day in coffee sales nationwide. The judge immediately reduced the punitive damages to 400,000 and McDonald's made an out of court settlement with Ms. Libseck.

Most Americans don't know how the civil justice system works, and that it's really the only branch within our legal system where the average person has a single level playing field and seek redress from a business man or a large corporation; and that your right to do this is a fundamental constitutional right. Large businesses have undertaken a 25 year crusade to trump up public angst over "frivolous lawsuits") and shows the historical nature of this campaign in both the media and at the state level with the Chamber of Commerce spending enormous amounts of money in state judicial elections. This happened when after several states passed caps on jury awards and TORT reform, several state supreme courts threw out the laws in violation of their states' constitutions. Karl Rove and Texas gubernatorial candidate George Bush made tort reform one of their election planks, claiming lawsuits were driving up medical costs for everyone (it's shown in the film that medical costs have not dropped in any state that's passed limits on jury awards or severely hampered a person's rights to sue for medical malpractice, and it's also shown that despite these laws, insurance companies are not required to lower their rates to doctors, and of course invariably, they never lower fees).

The fundamental issue with tort reform is that it's taking away the power of the jury and judges to make fundamental decisions on evidence heard in cases and given it to law makers who set arbitrary limits. In one case, a Nebraska woman won a 5 million lawsuit against her doctor due to malpractice. The baby was deprived of oxygen and has severe complications that require enormous amounts care and rehabilitation and physical therapy. But Nebraska has a punitive damages cap, and the family ended up with less than 500,000 to treat the boy. What will happen? They'll use Medicare and when the boys parents eventually die, he'll become a ward of the state.

It's a great documentary, and highly recommended to give you an insight on a topic that's been rather misrepresented in the media.

Here is an interview with the director:

For further reading on this subject, may I recommend

1. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis.

2. Snopes looks into the "Stella" awards, a prize given to the most absurd lawsuits (named after the plantiff in the McDonald's case), "According to Snopes.com, a website that debunks urban legends, “All of the entries in the list are fabrications – a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Nope. The amount of time between which the employee gave her the coffee and the time that she suffered third degree burns over 20% of her body was too short for her to have sufficiently altered the coffee.

The company is wholly responsible in this case. Had she brought the coffee home, tasted it, decided it was too cold and microwaved it to boiling, that would have been different. But that's not what happened. This was McDonalds' fault.

Nope. The amount of time between which the employee gave her the coffee and the time that she suffered third degree burns over 20% of her body was too short for her to have sufficiently altered the coffee.

Still not the point. Coffee is served hot. That means it's up to the person who accepts the hot coffee to be responsible with it.

The company is wholly responsible in this case. Had she brought the coffee home, tasted it, decided it was too cold and microwaved it to boiling, that would have been different. But that's not what happened. This was McDonalds' fault.

Given that the number of problems they had with the coffee were very, very few, the problem does not seem to be with McDonald's, but rather irresponsible customers. It's like blaming McDonald's if 700 people choked on their burgers because the patty isn't cut up into little pieces for them.

No, the coffee was served TOO HOT.

And of course, had McDonald's simply paid the medical costs not covered by Medicare, the lawsuit would have never happened.

Absolutely. All she wanted were her medical costs covered. She wasn't even interested in punitive damages.

Dude I almost hurled when I saw the photos of the injuries. I had no idea how bad they were. I knew they were 3rd degree burns, but that doesn't prepare you mentally. Christ almighty.

yeah, the deniers like to portray it like she got a sunburn. Third degree burns over 20% of your body isn't quite life-threatening, but it's up there.

She nearly died, and even still, she wasn't the same after all of this. I know older folks don't recover as quickly or as fully from severe injuries and I know this from my own personal experience with both of my parents, I'm quite sad to say.

:-/

Edited 2011-07-09 21:54 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I agree with this point.

Except it wasn't. It was served well within industry standards, and with no problem for virtually all customers who purchased it.

Right. Except in 700 people, it cause serious burns. If something causes third degree burns, it's TOO HOT.

Right. Except in 700 people, it cause serious burns. If something causes third degree burns, it's TOO HOT.

700 out of millions, if not billions, of customers. It's not too hot, it's that those 700 people appear to be doing it wrong. Not McDonald's problem.

No. Some of the others got away with lower level burns, some of them simply didn't bring it up. It doesn't matter how few have been hurt. The company is culpable.

As it was mentioned in the documentary, it could be hundreds or thousands more, they only know about these 700 that bothered to report the incidents.

OTOH I (almost) always complain that the coffee is too cold.

You drink McDonald's coffee? I thought you said you couldn't afford take out stuff?

I don't recall saying that.
Take today for example, I made a pot of coffee this morning. Took my coffee with me (so I could afford to buy a cinnamon roll) Being as how it was Saturday, I had a Mc Double off the dollar menu, 3 chocolate chip cookies and a Sr Coffee....total price 3.03 Yeah I can afford that :D (Suzie Orman aside)

Please note I only got the Sr coffee because I was stopping by a widow's house who always has coffee on, AND I still had coffee at home....good day :D

Gotcha. *nod*

My experiences are their coffee is so fucking hot, I can't carry the cup in my hands. I have to use one of those plastic bags they hand out for drinks, put the cup in that and carry it home. I know it's way hot because you can see steam coming out of the top of the decanter they pour it out of.

And prior to this specific lawsuit, someone went around a town in Texas, and took random measurements of chain coffee, Out of the 12 hottest they measured, McDonald's had the 9 of them. I've NEVER heard of anyone complaining about their coffee being too cold, except you and and on a right wing blog that was whining about this lawsuit.

Edited 2011-07-10 01:13 (UTC)

(no subject)

geezer-also.livejournal.com - 2011-07-10 01:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2011-07-10 01:20 (UTC) - Expand

It doesn't matter how few have been hurt. The company is culpable.

Yet you still, as usual, have not demonstrated this.

Psst: he didn't have to. The trial did that.

This post is not the trial.

That's obvious.

Her third degree burns, suffered in the parking lot ten feet from the drive-thru window demonstrate this.

It demonstrated she was hurt. It does not demonstrate culpability.

maybe not to your definition, but to anyone who can see that A+B=C, sure it does.