Hot Coffee is an HBO documentary that examines our civil justice system, by profiling four so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” including the now infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case.
At the center of the debate is our country’s tort system. Until now, those who wish to reform the tort system have played the role of the squeaky wheel. We encourage everyone to watch Hot Coffee to finally hear the other side of the story and how our tort system protects us all.
Documentary premiers Monday, June 27 on HBO
See HBO schedule to find out when it will re-air in your area (or watch anytime On Demand).
Visit the highly informative Hot Coffee website to learn more.
WATCH DOCUMENTARY PREVIEW BELOW
At the center of the debate is our country’s tort system. Until now, those who wish to reform the tort system have played the role of the squeaky wheel. We encourage everyone to watch Hot Coffee to finally hear the other side of the story and how our tort system protects us all.
What is a Tort?
Tort is a word borrowed from the French, where it means “wrong,” deriving from the Latin “tortus,” meaning “twisted.”
Tort law has origins, quite literally many hundreds of years ago, from before the Magna Carta (1215). The original purpose of tort law was to “keep the peace,” by compelling the wrongdoer to compensate the victim, or the victims family for the harm done, thus discouraging feuds.
Today, “tort” is generally understood to mean any wrongful act, done willfully or negligently, which causes injury or damage for which a civil suit can be brought. In other words, if you suffer a loss or injury as a result of another person or party’s negligence, you are entitled to fair compensation for the harm done. If the responsible person/party will not agree to pay fair compensation, you then have the right to present your case in court by filing a “tort” lawsuit.
The tort system is responsible for a wide range of lawsuits, including the law of personal injury, product liability, medical malpractice and auto accidents. The system serves two basic purposes – first, to compensate victims – and second, to serve as a correcting mechanism to discourage unsafe practices.
What is Tort Reform?
Tort reform is a short-hand way of referring to the many proposals made to 1) place limits on the kinds of lawsuits that can be brought, 2) the amount of damages that can be awarded and 3) on the right of the injured to be represented by an attorney.
The intention of those who would “reform” the tort system is simple; to decrease the cost of compensating injury victims to insurance companies, big business and big government.
Placing limits on the kinds of damages that can be awarded and putting caps (specific dollar amount limits) on the amount of damages that can be awarded reduces the value (or cost from the tort reformers perspective) of each individual tort case.
Limiting the fees that attorneys can charge for representing injury victims means that attorneys will turn down cases when the fees that can be earned will be too low for the time and expense involved in handling the case. As the fee restriction becomes more severe, the percentage of cases that will be turned down by attorneys goes up. Whatever percentage that is, those claims will never be filed so their cost is reduced to zero.
The goal of tort “reform” is to reduce both the number of tort claims that are made and the “cost” of each claim that is made.
Why should I care about Tort Reform?
What passes for tort reform today is a hodgepodge of one-sided legislative proposals and/or ballot initiatives backed by an unholy alliance of big business, big insurance and big government. If you aren’t among them, then tort reform is not intended to benefit you.
Tort reformer propaganda talks about “frivolous” lawsuits and “outrages” attorney’s fees – striking a note with anyone concerned with his or her own household budget. But is that really the tort reformers concern? How could their “reforms” effect you?
There are three types of damages that can result from a tort lawsuit: 1) compensatory damages, 2) general damages and 3) punitive damages.
Compensatory damages are meant to compensate the victim for the actual or “out of pocket” costs associated with the injury or illness, i.e. lost wages while recovering, loss or earning capacity and medical bills. Compensatory damages are not typically the direct target of tort reformers.
General damages, however, are meat to compensate the victim for the pain, suffering and emotional distress that accompanies a serious injury. There is no formula for determining the amount of general damages. The amount to be awarded is usually left to the sound discretion of a jury functioning as the “conscience of the community.”
Punitive damages, as the name implies, are imposed to punish a company for willful or intentional acts that are likely to cause injury or death. Punitive damages are rare and are only available when a judge finds the defendants conduct to be “despicable.”
By seeking to limit the kinds of damages that can be recovered (i.e. eliminating punitive damages) and placing caps on damages (i.e. setting a dollar limit for general damages) tort reformers are aiming at the serious injury claims, not the “frivolous” ones they talk about in their propaganda.
Under most “tort reform” proposals, a small claim for a sore neck after a minor automobile accident would be unaffected, however, a 16-year-old that is disfigured for life by a fire would feel the full impact of a cap on general damages. And an auto maker that decides it would be cheaper to pay the cost of a few wrongful death claims than recall and fix a defect in hundreds of thousands of cars would be “off the hook” for punitive damages that might otherwise deter such “despicable” conduct.
But what about those attorney fee limits? Surely that’s a good idea isn’t it? The amount varies from proposal to proposal, but most would limit contingent fees on injury cases to 10, 15 or 20 percent of the amount recovered. Depending on which percentage the proposal imposed, the amount of attorney’s fees that could be charged would be reduced 75 to 50 percent.
Do you think Starbucks would still sell coffee if we passed a law that said the coffee they used to sell for a dollar they must now sell for 25 cents?
But the problems for you with tort “reformers” fee proposals don’t stop there. Every single tort reform proposal that has sought to limit attorney’s fees has applied only to the fees charged by attorney’s representing injury victims. Not one tort reform proposal has limited what big business, big insurance or big government can pay its high priced, “hired gun” attorneys.
Under the tort reformers proposals, you will be lucky to find an inexperienced first year lawyer or an incompetent fool to represent you, while the insurance companies choose from the best of the best. How do you think that will work out for you?
“Frivolous” Lawsuits?
And what about those “frivolous” lawsuits they do talk about? Over the past 20 years, tort reformers have skewed and/or omitted the facts of various lawsuits, leading the public to believe that the lawsuit was frivolous or that the amount awarded is absurd or unjust.
Perhaps the most well known of these is the now infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case, which is the anchoring story in the HBO documentary Hot Coffee (premiers on Monday, June 27 at 9pm Eastern/Pacific, 8pm Central. See re-run schedule here). The real facts of that case are chilling; learning about the McDonald’s hot coffee case and of the other cases featured in this series shows what tort reformers really mean by “frivolous”.
McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case
Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother, was a passenger in her grandson’s car when they pulled into the drive-through of the local McDonald’s. Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee and placed the cup between her knees to add her cream and sugar. The coffee spilled, Liebeck was burned and sued McDonald’s. A jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages.
That’s about as much as most people know about the case. The rest of the facts tell the story.
When the cup of coffee that Stella Liebeck had between her knees, spilt, she suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her body – including her genital region. She was hospitalized for eight days where she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).
The temperature at which McDonald’s was selling and serving its coffee was extraordinarily hot. McDonald’s was serving coffee at 180 to 190 degrees, even though those at the golden arches knew that coffee served at this temperature, if spilled, would cause injury.
McDonald’s knew its coffee was dangerous, but continued to serve it at unsafe temperatures, at the advice of a consultant, to “maintain optimum taste.”
McDonald’s was aware of approximately 700 injuries, over a 10 year period, to its customers as a result of its hot coffee. All 700 injures took place BEFORE Stella Liebeck pulled into the drive-through and was handed her scalding hot cup of joe.
A judge and jury found this to be “despicable,” and so should you.
Ultimately, the $2.7 million punitive damage award – which would have only cost McDonald’s two days worth of coffee sales – was reduced to $480,000.
The information above includes excerpts from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California.
