> So they made a "Documentary" explaining that you are not an idiot > if you put hot coffee between your legs in a moving car and take off > the lid? OK, I think I'll pass.
I've heard about this case for years along with everyone else since it has been the poster child for frivolous lawsuits for ages. I fell solidly into the "wow she was dumb" category as well. I decided to give the show a watch based on this thread and here's the rundown: 1) Jury found the lady 20% responsible and McD's 80% responsible primarily because they had 700 prior complaints about burns from their coffee. Old lady was asking for them to slightly lower the "holding" temperature (which they did, down to 170 from 180) and to adjust the design of the lid so it would stay on the cup better (she was apparently trying to open the little flap to put in creamer when the lid slipped off and the cup tipped over toward her), and for them to cover her medical expenses related to skin grafts and such that were needed. They show pictures of the damage to her legs, and my goodness whatever burns you're imagining the photos are far worse. Jury awarded the large punitive damages because McDonalds had essentially ignored hundreds of prior complaints and wasn't doing anything about it. Judge later reduced the damages. 2) Show continues on to talk about tort reform in general and how Carl Rove and George Bush pushed it in TX to put damage caps in place to protect businesses from tort lawsuits. They make a claim that a huge "smear" campaign was run against frivolous lawsuits by so-called citizens groups which were actually nearly all fronts for business lobbying groups. 3) They talk about the US Chamber of Commerce and their campaigns across the country to pass tort reform legislation (also using so-called citizen groups to front political ads) and similar tactics to get judges elected who will side with businesses on tort cases. They bring up the case of a family who was pregnant with twins and a doctor who handled parts of the pregnancy and emergency c-section improperly which led to one of the children being born with severe brain damage which will require care and supervision for the rest of his life. Jury trial awarded $5.6 million in damages to cover ongoing medical care, but State law (sponsored by tort reformers) capped the damages at just above $1 million which had to cover attorney and court fees in addition to medical care (ongoing care had been estimated at $6 million which is why the jury made the initial award). 4) Moving on, next up are mandatory arbitration clauses that companies are using to "force" people to waive their rights to a jury trial. They cite the case of a woman who worked for Halliburton and went to Iraq who was subsequently gang-raped by her co-workers after being forced to live in housing with 400 men (she had been promised housing in a trailer with another woman; repeated complaints to HR and requests to be moved were ignored by her employer prior to the incident). After the incident company security effectively held her captive in a shipping container until she was able to get a phone from a sympathetic guard and make some calls; the US State Dept sent in agents to extract her. At the time of filming she was still fighting to get the case in court because of a mandatory binding arbitration clause in her employment contract. They talk about how banks, credit cards companies, cell carriers, etc. slip these in after the contract is signed so customers can't sue them later. Essentially the whole film is an overview of tort reform over the last decade or so and how it's eroding people's rights to sue businesses that hurt them through neglect or indifference. It asserts that punitive damages in tort cases are the only way to get the attention of big companies and force them to act to improve their products or policies. Big companies, through lobbying groups, have spend hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and advertising to change public opinion about tort cases and elect judges who will side with businesses, and to promote practices such as arbitration which limit access to civil court in the first place. In conclusion the film asks viewers to be careful with big companies, reject mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts, and to pay attention to the agendas of the organizations who sponsor political ads; essentially to be a well-informed citizen and to stand up for your rights. Overall, the "hot coffee" case is used as the entry point, but the film covers a lot more ground than I was expecting going in. Interesting stuff and a lot to consider. -Justin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366330 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
