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

[telemann.livejournal.com]

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."

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

There were 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992 some of them third degree burns as well.The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There were 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992 some of them third degree burns as well.

Indeed. Out of how many servings, again? This context matters. 700 claims (that doesn't mean they were valid, after all) over 10 years is not anything to be concerned about given the amount of people served, drinks served, etc. It's treating the exception as the rule.

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

That's nice. It doesn't make it true, but he's entitled to his own opinion on the matter.

The issue is simple - the legal system is designed to right a wrong. McDonald's did no wrong in offering coffee within the standard temperature. That there was any resolution to this case that resulted in McDonald's having to pay restitution, settlement or otherwise, is a miscarriage of justice.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The Miami Herald also issued an apology for Mr. Gavin's article which you linked to earlier. The producer of the documentary responded to Mr. Gavin's talking points in her own letter to the editor.

Re Glenn Garvin’s June 26 review, A documentary about lawyers, this time crying over spilled coffee: Garvin has a right to his opinion about the documentary Hot Coffee, but he does not have the right to misrepresent our organization, the Center for Justice & Democracy.

I helped found CJ&D after working for a number of years with Ralph Nader on liability and insurance issues. Nader, a group of consumer advocates and I founded this organization together. We are a tiny group, funded by foundation grants (not related to lawyers), memberships and subscriptions to our materials and donations. We are not a political front for anyone, including trial lawyers. Our board of directors consists of a film producer, a political science professor and me.

This article is less a film review than a list of tired, incorrect talking points, the sorts of things more likely to come from corporate special interests than TV critics. We wonder who may have supplied this false information to Garvin.

Joanne Doroshow, executive director, Center for Justice & Democracy, New York

Looks like Mr. Gavin fucked up.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Looks like Gavin got them on the defensive. But I notice that you're not really interested in the facts of the case. Those who are opposed to tort reform typically are not, as the facts of the cases generally weaken the argument for allowing the free-for-all we've seen.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!

*sigh*

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

So typical.

Re: *sigh*

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Re: *sigh*

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

[Error: unknown template video]

Re: *sigh*

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Re: *sigh*

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Re: *sigh*

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That's nice, but a jury found otherwise. And they got to hear the testimony you didn't. But here's some of the highlights:

* By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
* Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
* Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
* The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
* McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
* From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
* Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
* At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
* Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then required temperature;
* McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
* McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
* Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable

So what? I think it's acceptable, and if I drank coffee, I would want it made correctly.

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years

Obviously, they think it's acceptable too. And using the word "admitted" is trying to imply guilty conscience on their part and is emotional manipulation.

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then required temperature

This is the only real problem in the case.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's nice, but a jury found otherwise. And they got to hear the testimony you didn't

So did OJ's.

Thanks for all the already-known information. My point stands on its own.

paradigm gearshift

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Mr. Elliott, the juror, says he began to realize that the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

That's nice. It doesn't make it true, but he's entitled to his own opinion on the matter. How, uh, contrite of you, jeff.

You dismiss this 'opinion' because he, (arguably one of 20 or so people who knows far more facts of this case than you or anyone else in this conversation combined) because he does not reflect your paradigm? I'd speculate he has more than an 'opinion' on this particular case, yes indeedy I would.

I expect better, sir.

Re: paradigm gearshift

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He is very much influenced by how the case went, sure. I expect better of many here.

Re: paradigm gearshift

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Oh he was very much influenced by how the facts of the case was presented. Since conjecture is not allowed in court trials, only facts, your comment bolsters my position.

Unless you want to argue she had superior legal council to McDonalds, then you may have a point.

There are no conspiracies against the Corporate State™ here. Be well.

Re: paradigm gearshift

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't doubt that she had superior council.