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

If they leave a bone in it, yes.

The lady hadn't even been able to drink it. The person who was driving the car pulled forward a few feet, and then stopped the car. They had not left the parking lot. The coffee was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns. McDonalds had been told several times to lower the temperature. They were culpable, and would be culpable today if the same thing happened.

If they leave a bone in it, yes.

No no, it's a standard sandwich. Just like every other sandwich offered.

The lady hadn't even been able to drink it. The person who was driving the car pulled forward a few feet, and then stopped the car. They had not left the parking lot.

Yes. She then held the cup in her lap - very hot coffee designed to be consumed while traveling - and then tried to remove the lid while holding the cup in her lap. That's not safe. That's not responsible. That's actually really, really dumb.

And McDonald's is liable? What?

She did what thousands of other people do every day. People take the lid off the coffee all the time to add milk and sugar.

The car was stopped. If it had happened in the restaurant, would that have been enough to make them liable?

Of course not. In your view, the corporation is NEVER liable.

She did what thousands of other people do every day. People take the lid off the coffee all the time to add milk and sugar.

Yet thousands of others didn't have an issue. Why?

If it had happened in the restaurant, would that have been enough to make them liable?

No. Again, food is served at a specific temperature. Ever had shabu shabu?

You actually take meat, put it in a boiling flavored broth, and eat it. If I burn myself on it, why the hell is the restaurant liable?

Of course not. In your view, the corporation is NEVER liable.

Corporations should be liable for what they're responsible for. They did not force this woman to be irresponsible with her cup.

I also notice you avoided the chicken sandwich question again.

I didn't avoid the chicken sandwich.

She wasn't irresponsible with her cup. The jury even agreed with that.

People have a right to expect to not have $20,000 worth of medical expenses by being injured by their FOOD.

The jury did find her 20 percent responsible for the accident. But there was no doubt in their mind that McDonald's had no interest in preventing future accidents, despite many complaints, and even a few other cases brought against them. Despite the consistent defense McDonald's was using an industry standard, new_machine has logically shown that wasn't a proper defense and didn't allow them off the hook. Plus testimony was given at the trial showing the coffee was too damn hot to safely consumed. McDonald's didn't appeal and they did lower their coffee temperature by ten degrees, which is a big difference for potential burn victims.

I didn't avoid the chicken sandwich.

I must have missed your answer here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1077904.html?thread=86170768#t86170768).

She wasn't irresponsible with her cup. The jury even agreed with that.

The jury was clearly wrong here. There's nothing responsible about it.

People have a right to expect to not have $20,000 worth of medical expenses by being injured by their FOOD.

Indeed. Since she caused the injury to herself, it's fairly stupid to blame the food.

The jury was clearly wrong here. There's nothing responsible about it.

LOL!

I presume you have different sets of blinders, so as to match your clothing choices day to day.

So nothing?

you weren't on the jury, you didn't have the evidence presented to you, and you pay lip-service to the concept of corporate responsibility to customers. There's nothing that can be said that will convince you.

Oh, plenty could be said if you took even a little bit of time to try and back your views up with anything reputable or reliable. Instead, whines of "blinders." I know the drill.

when you're unwilling to accept the facts, you get the drill.

lol

The fact is, much like someone wouldn't be able to hold a restaurant liable for choking on a chicken sandwich, a restaurant should not be held liable for offering coffee at a hot temperature, especially if the customer injures herself via her irresponsibility. And I'm unwilling to accept facts?

She didn't injure herself imbibing the food. The coffee was too hot.

No, she instead injured herself by not holding the cup properly, irresponsibly trying to hold a cup of hot coffee between her legs to remove the cover that's designed to keep the hot coffee in the cup.

You cannot dispute that. If you can, you haven't even tried.

as I was corrected, she was found 20% responsible. That doesn't change the corporation's larger culpability.

Not that you've demonstrated larger culpability. "The jury said so" ain't evidence - what's your proof?

Third degree burns over 20% of her body, after McDonalds was told over and over that their coffee was too hot -- over 700 times, in fact.

Prove that she was irresponsible. Except you can't.

Third degree burns over 20% of her body, after McDonalds was told over and over that their coffee was too hot -- over 700 times, in fact.

Burns of her own creation after millions of customers had no problem.

Prove that she was irresponsible. Except you can't.

She tried to hold hot coffee between her legs in order to remove a protective cap. That's irresponsible.

No, burns of McDonalds' creation, because they heated their coffee to a significantly dangerous temperature.

She tried to hold hot coffee between her legs in order to remove a protective cap. That's irresponsible.

Prove it. Where's the law against it? Oh, wait.

No, burns of McDonalds' creation, because they heated their coffee to a significantly dangerous temperature.

Choking of McDonald's creation, because they didn't cut their chicken up into bite size pieces for you.

That a product could cause burns if handled irresponsibly does not create liability.

Prove it. Where's the law against it? Oh, wait.

Did I say illegal? Oh, wait.

No, no, no... you said it was irresponsible, now prove it.

There's a difference between choking on something, and being burned by something when preparing it.

You just can't get it through your head that when a company makes coffee so hot it causes third degree burns hundreds of times, that people will find that company culpable. All you wanna do is focus on how stupid you think the woman was, without paying a single bit of attention to McDonalds' lack of corrective action the first 700 times they were told to fix the coffee temperature.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject