"Hot Coffee" DOC, Have You Seen It?

I am looking for opinions/thoughts of people who have seen this doc, who previously believed tort was a good thing. Also would love to hear from people who have seen this and still believe in tort reform.

http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/23383/hot-coffee/#1414367
posted it a while back.
As i do not live in the US i can not really argue what would be the best to pursue. And a while after this Documentary was released the Women in the Docu that went against her employee was found to be a fraud.
But still the cases shown in this movie is a frightening Picture of things to come for Citizens of the United States.

I appreciate the response Bellestarr. I am looking for insight into how people view this from the other side of tort or should I say people who support tort reform.

I just watched the preview of it that Geloudia posted. Having not seen the actual documentary yet, I don't have any sort of informed opinion yet. But from the preview it looks a bit frightening.

I, too, had believed the hot coffee lawsuit on McDonald's to be frivolous. But she was burned so badly they thought she might not live? There's no earthly reason for coffee to be THAT hot. I have no doubt that the media twists things to portray the opinions of their sponsors rather than impartially telling news. And it's despicable that the news does very heavily twist news stories. There's a lot of things wrong in every country, it seems like. This is one of America's many very wrong things. I don't know how to fix it. :-(

I followed the general public view that "tort reform" was a good thing, before going to law school and researching the subject (and seeing videos like this).

Before law school, I was under the impression that there was a massive siege on the justice system by "frivolous" lawsuits from "get rich quick" clients and lawyers, who get outrageous sums of money for minor or faked injuries.

After examining the actuality of the system, researching the cases and laws, and seeing documentaries like "Hot Coffee" (which everyone should see by the way), I have determined my initial views couldn't be farther from the truth.

Businesses who create products that injure or kill members of the public, are held liable via a myriad of product and manufacturer liability plans (strict liability, workers comp, tort). Torts, or common lawsuits for compensation for damages, are designed to provide individual compensation to members of the public who were injured or killed by a company's product or labor.

Torts serve 2 main functions:
1. Prevention/Deterrence. Tort serves as a means to deter companies from creating dangerous products and/or services.
2. Compensation. Torts ensure that when you go to the hospital and they accidentally amputate the wrong leg (happens more often than you realize), you are compensated for the extra suffering and disadvantages you now have to live with (being a paraplegic for life). Under Texas Tort Reform (strictest in the country), you're limited to $20,000 for many injuries, regardless of whether that injury will cost you exponentially more over time.

While there have been a few "outrageously high tort numbers", the majority of tort results are small and related to the actual injury caused (and the outrageously high numbers are usually knocked down upon appeal).

Limits already in place to avoid "outrageously high verdicts":
Essentially, either the state law, or the judge overseeing the jury trial, sets a limit on how much the jury can award the client (or the judge lets the jury pick any number based on the expert testimony, and then the judge uses his experience and knowledge to cut that number down). Additionally, if a number survives both the jury's deliberation, and the judge's experience, it can still (and usually is) be struck down by the court of appeals for not being a realistic compensation value for the injury.

One problem however, is that companies just don't like paying for the damages they inflict on the public (why pay billions a year to the public when you can spend millions a year to buy the politicians instead!). Thus the nation began it's active campaign "against friviolous lawsuits". Whereas politicians advertised that they're here to clean up all the frivolous lawsuites, and the companies themselves advertised the idea that people trying to get compensation for injuries were not victims, but fraudulent fakers.

The prime example is "Hot Coffee", where nearly all Americans know of the "100 million dollar lawsuit where the woman spilled some hot coffee on her". When in reality, the verdict was only a couple million (1.3 to her after all the lawyer/expert/court fees), and barely covered her medical expenses and hardly covered her pain and suffering, as she almost died.

The picture these companies and bought politicians are trying to paint, is that the tort system is not for victims, but rather for scum trying to take advantage of industry.

The actual picture, is a system of injustice that is getting harder and harder to provide compensation to those that were injured. Tort reform laws are ensuring that people who are hurt/killed not only have an extremely difficult time suing (or are simply blocked from suing), but obtain pitiful amounts when they can sue (20,000 for a hospital cutting off the wrong limb).

Just another example of businesses buying their way out of liability by paying the politician a fraction of what they would have paid the public.

Fight against tort reform, and inform yourself on the subject, so you won't be a victim of the rhetoric come election day.

I thought this was about GTA San Andreas.

While this documentary may hold truth to it, I would be wary of any documentary. They really aren't documentaries and shouldn't be called that. They are typically agenda driven biased movies with emotional overtones.

This documentary is a great example:

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/

This documentary is on netflix. It talks about how companies try to keep people paying huge sums of money for cancer treatment, while this guy has a cure for cancer that the FDA wont approve.

After watching it then doing some research on my own, it turns out the guy running the cancer clinic is charging 100k+ just to be in the clinical trial and his death rate is insane. He basically scams people out of money for an outrageously expensive cancer treatment that almost never works.

But the documentary makes him out to be a crusader against the evil companies selling chemo products, when in reality he is a breed of evil all his own.

Jessi,
I agree with your stance that "documentary's" can be subjective, I wonder what the agenda is in "Hot Coffee."

That is why I posted this topic. I dont understand the logic of people who are against tort reform, and was seeking opposition opinions.

Documentary aside, check the case facts link.

The coffee was determined to be between 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. As a reference water boils at 212. At that temperature, third degree burns can occur in 2 to 7 seconds.

Ms. Liebeck suffered third degree burns over 6% and lesser burns over 16%. She had to have skingrafts, spent 8 days in the hospital and required treatment over the next 2 years.

She initially sought to settle for $20,000, approximately $13,000 in medical expenses, and $5,000 in lost wages, with approximately $2,000 unassigned. McDonald's offered her $800.

Liebeck's attorney then attempted to settle at $90,000, $300,000, and finally at $225,000 as suggested by an independent mediator. McDonald's refused each settlement.

Liebeck initially was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitive damages.

The problem with the focus on the the high award is twofold:

1) They neglect the point of punitive damages, to punish the defendant for attempting to weasel (or bully) out of paying what they owe. Corporations have much more money to spend on defending themselves in lawsuits than the vast majority of Americans. Civil suits exist (generally) to reimburse individuals for harm they receive. There is no way to send a corporation to jail, when punitive damages are awarded they act as a way of keeping corporations in line with the public interest.

2) The damages were eventually reduced to $640,000. This is still more than any amount Liebeck initially tried to settle for. Liebeck was not looking to make a payday off McDonald's. She was trying to was trying to recover (mostly) her medical expenses.

Additionally, mediation and arbitration are becoming increasingly popular ways of dealing with civil suits. There are plenty of issues involved with these methods dispute resolutions that you might be interested in reading.

There are few civil suits that are actually frivolous, and this was not one of them. While the $2.7mil in punitive damages initially awarded may have been excessive, the judicial process eventually lowered the damages to about $640,000.

Proponents of tort reform like to leave that aspect out. Tort law exists to transfer money from injuring party to injured party to compensate the injured for their loss.

One of the major problems is this poses a large problem to corporations. If they make a defective product they are liable for the damage the product causes.


Painting lawsuits as frivolous benefits defendants of lawsuits as that attitude helps lower judgements, and deter potential lawsuits. It's easier for advocates of tort reform to blame the victim; convince the public that individuals who receive damages in lawsuits don't really deserve them, then the public fights each other rather than injuring parties.

Not really a fan of chilled coffee myself, though the Starbucks frappuccinos are good. I'm gonna have to go with hot coffee myself.

same