Just watched the movie “Hot Coffee” a new documentary on Tort Reform on HBO On Demand. It was fascinating and chilling and I would recommend it to anyone with any interest at all (on either side of the issue).
The title refers, of course, to the famous “Old lady spills McDonalds’ coffee on herself and wins millions” case that everyone thinks they know. The movie digs deeper and reveals before she had burned herself, McD’s had received over 700 complaints about burns from their coffee; the Jury had decided on the amount because it equaled two days worth of coffee sales for the company and it was reduced by a judge to $400,000 anyway; also the family had only sued after McDonalds had refused to help them with their medical bills.
Beyond that one case, the movie goes into things I was not really aware of or had only heard a little about: efforts to stack Supreme Courts with pro business Judges and the pervasiveness of Binding Arbitration Agreements. Basically if you signed a contract in the last few years, you have signed away your right to sue and instead, any disputes must be heard by an arbitration company that is paid by the company you have a dispute with.
I realize this teeters on the edge of Great Debates but I had just happened to see this movie under On Demand and wanted to mention it because I found it really well done.
I watched it as well. I already knew the truth about the coffee case, but the stuff about the Chamber of Commerce throwing their weight behind state judicial elections was a real eye-opener. Savvy move on their part, but…wow. My respect for the judiciary has reached a new low.
This was my take-away as well. Not only the information about the US CoC contributions, but that the judge who won re-election despite their efforts was kept off of the bench for ~3 years fighting seemingly baseless lawsuits (based on the facts presented in the documentary anyway), ironically brought by the group pushing tort reform.
What the hell kind of way is that to determine the amount of compensation? Is there some kind of formula for this? I’m not arguing fault, wasn’t on the jury, but isn’t the number kind of pulled out of the air?
The Juror they interviewed said that McDonald’s representatives on the stand made it clear to them that they were aware there was problem but didn’t seem concerned about it so the Jury wanted to get their attention so this amount was their decision.
One of the movie’s theses is that the concept that Juries of our peers that hear all the facts of a case are a better determiner of what is a fair and just outcome versus blanket legislation that is mostly politically motivated by pro business interests.
I also knew about the McDonalds case. The rest of it was revelatory. It also proved (as if anybody had any doubt) that Karl Rove is the fucking incarnation of Satan himself.
I really hate the device where the documentary-maker finds some random schlub on the street and says, “hey, do you know what a XYZ is?” and then spends five minutes showing those people not knowing what it is.