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

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Jeff automatically jumping to the defense of corporate rights to mutilate people. No surprise here.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Why should there have been punitive damages for something that is a commonly accepted practice?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Because they were on notice that their "commonly accepted practice," which they accept is harmful if spilled after serving, can cause third-degree burns, and they still did not warn customers of the unsafe state in which the coffee was being served. Just because everyone else if standing on street corners firing randomly doesn't mean that you're off the hook when your random shots happen to hit someone.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You think that mutilating people should stay a commonly accepted practice?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Harm was not the outcome of 99.999% of customers using the product.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And since they had to lower the temperature of their coffee McDonalds went bankrupt and America died right?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

That's immaterial.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No I think it having no effect on McDonalds both when they were told they needed to lower it and after they didn't and got sued is very material.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I don't recall any defense of a right to mutilate people. I note a right to sell coffee at a normal, acceptable temperature, though.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Sorry but NewMachine fixed your legal misunderstanding about that "right" in his replies :-)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, we're discussing it. You know, discussion - where there's actually a back and forth?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It's a new feeling for you I know, but hey, it's something!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, it's a standard feeling. I'd love to do that with you sometime, too.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

lol.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

[Error: unknown template video]

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I note a right to sell coffee at a normal, acceptable temperature, though.

Oh so you agree with the suit, good to hear.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Not at all. The suit was frivolous, and showed a complete lack of responsibility from the woman who burned herself.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No it didn't.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So it's responsible to take extremely hot coffee that you know you cannot consume, put it between your legs, and attempt to jar off the cup cover that has secured your very hot drink in its cup for your protection?

I just want to be sure that's considered "responsible" for you.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its irresponsible for them to hand people hot coffee that you can't consume in a car. What is she going to do, dump it out the window? Test every beverage that she buys at a drive up by opening it and testing it?

Its very typical of you to heap all the blame on the individual. It could be a case of a company making a toy that 1% of the time combusts killing all children involved and you'd automatically hold the company blameless. Damn parents should have had psychic powers if they wanted their kids to survive.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

She should have worn asbestos panties! That's what the libertarians would say!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Its irresponsible for them to hand people hot coffee that you can't consume in a car.

No, it's not. It's entirely responsible to do so based on the demand for it and the fact that it's understood that the coffee is hot to be consumed as you travel.

Its very typical of you to heap all the blame on the individual. It could be a case of a company making a toy that 1% of the time combusts killing all children involved and you'd automatically hold the company blameless. Damn parents should have had psychic powers if they wanted their kids to survive.

It is typical of me, I suppose, because I actually expect some basic competence, and cannot bring myself to simply ignore the facts in front of me.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its typical of you because instantly you fault the individual and ask for unobtainable levels of "competence" its always "oh if they were more responsible" with you, even if its literally impossible. Oh how can she expect to get on in this world without being psychic, typical liberal. Always the same thing. Yes, typical of you. Very.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you can find multiple sentences to criticize me, but not much in the way of words to defend your position on the matter.