Hot Coffee - What to Do About Frivolous Lawsuits (Graphic Burn Photographs)

      In 1994, a woman named Stella Leibeck famously (or infamously) spilled hot McDonald's coffee on herself in her parked car. She then proceeded to sue the McDonald's corporation and was awarded $2.86 million by the jury. Mrs. Leibeck was then derided internationally and became the "poster child" for frivolous lawsuits and tort reform. Just about everyone knows about this case but many people do not know the details. For instance, Mrs. Leibeck originally asked McDonald's to simply cover her medical costs and loss of income which were approximately $18,000. In response McDonald's offered $800. As the lawsuit went forward many attempts were made by Leibeck's lawyer to settle for between $60,000 and $300,000, all of which were turned down by McDonald's. In addition to this, McDonald's coffee had caused over 700 scaldings all of which had been settled by the corporation. During the Leibeck vs. McDonald's trial, a McDonald's executive testified that the losses to the company caused by these scaldings were not significant enough to warrant any change in company policy. It is also not well known that after the jury awarded $2.7 million the judge reduced that amount to a total of $640,000. McDonald's appealed and then settled for an undisclosed amount under $600,000. For those of you who still feel that this was a huge amount, this is a photo of her injuries.

Despite what many might think the temperature at which McDonald's brewed (and still brews) it's coffee is not unreasonable. The McDonald's training manual states that coffee should be brewed at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit. As this is only 22 degrees off of boiling it can cause significant injury if contact with the skin is made. However, this is actually the temperature at which almost all coffee is made. As I was writing this blog I walked up to the barista at the Starbucks I patronize and asked at what temperature the coffee is held. He said, "It is held at between 180 and 190 degrees, but is brewed at a higher temperature." This, and other similar lawsuits, are the topic of the documentary Hot Coffee. The film goes on to argue that tort reform, monetary caps on damages, and mandatory arbitration are all attempts by powerful corporations and the politicians (and judges) they endorse, to take away the right to civil litigation by the everyman. This is a very powerful film that everyone should see. However, the people who do see it should also do their own research and think critically about what they have learned.
     This documentary talks about several different "Exhibits" as if they were presenting evidence in a courtroom and in a sense they are. They are presenting evidence to the courtroom of your mind, where I hope Reason presides. Naturally, you will have to make decisions about the evidence presented for yourself. I believe that this documentary was really trying to present a balanced case with evidence both for and against tort reform. Unfortunately, much of the evidence presented ended up being flawed when everything was put into the light.

     After discussing Mrs. Leibeck and her case, the documentary went on to talk about Mississippi Supreme Court Judge Oliver Diaz, who was attacked during his election campaign by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for being anti business and anti tort reform.

Despite the attack Diaz won the election but was then indicted on charges of bribery and tax evasion. As portrayed by the film he was acquitted of all charges but not before he was prevented from serving as judge for over two years. This was shown in such a way as to lead the audience to believe that this delay in allowing him to serve was part of a right wing conspiracy to protect corporations from litigation. What was not shown by the film was that while the judge was acquitted of the charges, it was only because his wife plead guilty and was given two years probation. I will allow you to make your own decision on whether or not he allowed his wife to take the fall for these crimes. This also highlights the importance of voting with care and evaluating the sources behind everything you see and hear. Needless to say, this is especially important when considering political attack ads.

      The final portion of the documentary talked about Jamie Leigh Jones and her alleged gang rape by KBR employees while she was serving as a civilian contractor in Iraq. She had signed an employment contract that prevented her from suing her employer and instead called for mandatory arbitration for any disputes. The film followed her attempts to get out of that arbitration as she fought for her day in an actual courtroom. The film stopped filming before she was able to get her day in court, but it did eventually happen. It turned out that there was overwhelming evidence that much of what Ms. Jones had to say was largely made up and she was held liable for much of Halliburton's legal fees.
       Even though the documentary showed poor evidence of the need for tort reform, I do believe it is necessary. In particular there should be much more transparency involved in these disputes. If the public is able to see settlement amounts for instance they will be able to decide for themselves if it was a fair amount. If the legal proceedings are made public, people will be able to see for themselves if a corporation should be held responsible. Despite what many people think there are not that many frivolous lawsuits and those that are frivolous are usually very quickly thrown out. Many of the famous stories that have become viral over the internet are completely made up. Those that aren't generally have extenuating circumstances that many people are not aware of. Juries and especially judges are generally more intelligent than many people will lead you to believe. If we elect the right judges, they will know the proper damages that are due to victims. 

       By far my favorite portion of this documentary was the advice given just before the end. This advice was so fantastic I will post it here as well.
 1. Be a savvy consumer of media - Question whether or not you are getting the full story.
 2. Know your State Laws (Author Edit) - Make your own decision concerning whether caps on damages are appropriate and make sure your views are represented in the state legislature.
 3. Scrutinize Political Ads - Research the agenda of the organization paying for the ad.
 4. Read your Contracts (Author Edit) - Decide for yourself if mandatory arbitration is right for you as an employee and make sure your views are represented in congress.