hot coffee ( film )
official selection of sundance, silverdocs documentary, and hot docs film festivals; grand jury prize, seattle film festival .
most consumers don’t know that coffee this hot causes such injuries. nor do they know mcdonald’s made a practice of serving its coffee this hot .
the law school will host a screening of hot coffee, a sundance documentary film about the mcdonald’s hot coffee case, liebeck v. mcdonald’s restaurants, and its aftermath, on thursday, april 12, 2012 .
great timing for this post. i was reading yesterday that the film hot coffee, a documentary aimed at dispelling the myths about the hot coffee case, premiered at sundance this week. have you heard whether it' s good ?
i’m sure your rebuttal will be ” it was too hot” or “others complained they were burned. of course …its coffee its a hot drink! !
watch hot coffee and you won’t be so quick to dismiss something as a “frivolous lawsuit” again .
plaintiff’s claims for excessively hot coffee fail to state a claim for which this court might grant relief .
this film is really about an argument against tort reform. no problem with that but it is built upon suggesting that the hot coffee case was unfairly misrepresented in the media ...
next up for our film series @ the hollywood theatre is hot coffee, which examines the case of liebeck v. mcdonald’s restaurants, known as the “hot coffee lawsuit, ” in which a woman sued the fast - food giant after she spilled her coffee and burned herself. looking past the scathing negative publicity of the trial, the film examines the insidious reasons why mcdonald’s invested heaps of money to sway public opinion against the plaintiff .
seriously who does not know that coffee is hot no matter what temperature it is. when you go through a drive thru and get hot coffee you don’t put it between your legs. that’s what cup holders are for .
director susan saladoff will host a workshop @ nw doc to discuss the making of hot coffee, her first film, and share how she successfully screened at dozens of festivals and aired on hbo .
steve is using letterboxd to share film reviews and lists with friends. join here .
call us crazy, but we thought a film entitled, hot coffee, would mostly be about, well, the hot coffee case. after all, the film’s website heralds: “ hot coffee reveals what really happened to [ famed mcdonald’s hot coffee plaintiff ] stella liebeck... ” and that “ [ a ] fter seeing the film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee. ” saladoff told indiewire: “the mcdonald’s coffee case is the most famous case in the world, and yet almost everyone has it wrong. ” those are bold statements. yet the 88 minute film dedicates only ten minutes to the liebeck case. if the liebeck litigation has become the “most famous case in the world” and misunderstood by the american public, saladoff could have dedicated the entire film to debunking any purported misperceptions. certainly, that’s what the title suggests she planned to do. but that’s not what she’s done. in reality, the mcdonald’s case is nothing more than a cinematic hook to bring viewers to saladoff’s more general propaganda .
was the coffee too hot? no, the coffee, which is supposed to be “hot” was, actually, “scalding” (for those who work with the plain language of statute, this should not be too quickly overlooked) .
if you thought you knew all about the mcdonald’s “hot coffee” lawsuit, you are dead wrong. i was like you. i thought, “greedy old woman, don’t you know coffee is hot? why do you think you deserve millions of dollars for spilling coffee on yourself? ”
this has to stop. it begins with watching hot coffee, and then learning what you can do to help .
tags: documentaries, films, hot coffee, liebeck v. mcdonald' s restaurants, tort law, tort reform
“hot coffee” is a documentary film that reveals how big business, aided by the media, brewed a dangerous concoction of manipulation and lies to protect corporate interests. ms. liebeck’s case is one of four cases discussed in this film which shows how people’s lives were devastated by political agendas and attacks on the court system. the film challenges the assumptions americans hold about “jackpot justice. ”
i recommend you watch the documentary. it is about much more than “hot coffee” or any of the other individual cases listed. ultimately, the film is about big business being able to control the judicial system .
for more on the case, please see the abnormal use law blog’s “ stella liebeck mcdonald’s hot coffee case faq. ”
“the national coffee association actually recommends that coffee be brewed at a temperature between 195 - 205 degrees. ”
the thing is “personal accountability” goes bot ways… here mcdonalds put out something proported to be coffee but was too hot to drink and was so hot it would give you 3rd degree burns. (btw the coffee at your house is no where near that temp )
i’m going to sue ge because i burned my hand on my stove…”it was too hot” they could have it warm food with being so hot right .
coffee served at 135 - 155 degrees f is plenty hot, but still less likely to disfigure someone than 180 degree f coffee – something i believe the movie more or less mentions with regard to the holding temperature for mcdonald’s coffee. and i can’t really imagine someone complaining because the coffee they received was merely piping hot rather than literally scalding. (perhaps a masochist. )
4. plaintiff has alleged that the coffee was “excessively hot” and “defective” because of its high temperature. plaintiff’s complaint, paragraph iv .
how the infamous mcdonald' s hot coffee lawsuit and similar cases were exploited as part of a right wing crusade to weaken civil justice .
nick farr is awfully apologetic (not really) for saying those mean things about hot coffee, the new documentary film presenting lawsuit lobby view of the world [ abnormal use, earlier ] related: tbd, more. more: bob dorigo jones .
there can be no doubt that potable coffee is, by its very nature, hot. the evidence in this case establishes that there is nothing unique about mcdonald’s coffee in this regard: although billions of cups of coffee are consumed without incident every year, all restaurateurs serve coffee at temperatures high enough to cause third - degree burns under certain conditions. indeed, the courts of new mexico have cited coffee
this powerful doc examines how the famous
hot coffee
lawsuit against mcdonald' s harmed the rights of americans to sue negligent corporations and doctors .
playing to her plaintiffs’ lawyer crowd, ms. saladoff’s movie portrays mcdonald’s as being cruel in refusing to settle the case for ms. liebeck’s basic medical costs. it also rehashes the fact that mcdonald’s coffee was about ten degrees hotter than coffee served in other areas in that part of new mexico. hot coffee gleefully reports that mcdonalds reduced the temperature of its coffee by ten degrees after the “hot coffee case. ” but, what the movie does not show is whether ms. liebeck’s burns would have been less severe if the coffee had been just ten degrees cooler .
tort reform is infringing on individual rights in the united states. the film does a great job explaining the issue .
hot coffee states that in the ten years prior to ms. liebeck’s accident, mcdonald’s had received over seven hundred complaints about their hot coffee. what the movie does not report is that during that ten - year period, mcdonald’s sold around ten billion cups of coffee. any business in the world that had only seven hundred complaints out of ten billion sales would believe it had performed a good job in terms of safety and care. but, if all one hears is “about seven hundred complaints, ” then one can conclude that the purveyor of the hot coffee was somehow evil and wrong. this is the “half a cup” approach taken by the film .
so the story of stella liebeck opens the new documentary “ hot coffee, ” which will be shown monday on hbo, part of its summer documentary series .
one group of reviewers has given the film a thumbs down: those who work to limit what they call frivolous lawsuits. bryan quigley, a spokesman for the united states chamber institute of legal reform, compared the film to the flat earth society .
stella liebeck received 3rd degree burns on her thighs (pictured above, screenshot taken from hot coffee) when she opened a cup of coffee to add cream and sugar. liebeck was not driving, she was parked and sitting in the passenger seat. it was mcdonald’s policy to “hold” coffee at a temperature of 190° .
not every hot - coffee - spill case is like liebeck v. mcdonald’s. sometimes defendants actually are negligent [ nick farr / abnormal use, earlier here and many others ]
seinfeld mocked it. letterman ranked it in his top ten list. and more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. everyone knows the mcdonald’s coffee case. it has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of america’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? hot coffee reveals what really happened to stella liebeck, the albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued mcdonald’s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. after seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee .
sure, warnings, then and now, are plastered all over cups and tops: “careful, the beverage you are about to enjoy is extremely hot, ” says the starbucks cup. “caution contents hot, ” says the lid. “caution handle with care i’m hot, ” says the mcdonald’s cup .
everything i read from the coffee industry itself, recommends that coffee should be brewed at 195 - 205, and should be stored at 180 - 190 .
this past week, when asked about our assertions on national public radio, saladoff skirted around the issue, citing the same line that mcdonald’s knew that hot coffee was, in fact, hot. apparently, any effort to challenge her on that point is just another dirty corporate disinformation campaign .
the central issue was whether hot coffee, which by its very nature is hot, is an unreasonably dangerous and defective product because of its temperature. more specifically, the case concerned whether coffee served at 180 - 190 degrees is so hot that it makes the coffee itself unreasonably dangerous and defective. shortly after the trial, the wall street journal reported that mcdonalds’ internal manuals at the time–produced in the litigation— indicated that “its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. ” … contemporary media reports suggested that the coffee was approximately 165 to 170 degrees at the time of the spill, indicating that it had cooled somewhat between the time it was served and the time it had spilled… .
the mcdonald’s hot coffee case. we all remember it. a lady was driving, spilled coffee on herself, claimed that it burned her, sued mcdonald’s and won millions; right? well, contrary to what i and many people believed, that isn’t exactly what happened .
we mention this verdict today because the jones lawsuit was prominently featured in susan saladoff’s recent documentary, hot coffee, which we reviewed previously here. specifically, the film chronicled jones’ inability to have her claims heard by a jury due a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract (although we here at abnormal use did not explore the jones case in our review because our interest in the film was prompted primarily by its discussion of the stella liebeck mcdonald’s hot coffee case). in 2009, the fifth circuit ruled that jones did have the right to have her case heard by a jury. see jones v. halliburton co. , 583 f. 3d 228 (2009) .
liebeck’s story is eye - opening enough, but hot coffee goes on to present three more cases in which ordinary citizens were severely wronged by private companies, the medical profession, and political operatives. (there’s a rape case here with a corporate response to it that will chill your soul and make your blood boil .) watch hot coffee and you’ll learn more about the pernicious effect of tort reform, damage caps, and how state supreme court judges campaigns are sometimes conducted. (hint: follow karl rove throughout this film. )
testified that the addition of a warning to the mcdonald’s coffee would have influenced mrs .
curiously, the warnings issue receives little attention these days. although liebeck alleged that “the container that it was sold in had no warnings, or had a lack of warnings, ” the very cup at issue is prominently displayed—with its “plaintiff’s exhibit 44” sticker still affixed—on both the website and the promotional poster of the hot coffee film. however, in the very same pictures, it is clear that the cup advises in orange text: “caution: contents hot. ”
publicity about the mcdonald’s “hot coffee case” convinced many americans that our legal system was broken. if a person could successfully bring a claim against a restaurant when they spilled coffee on themselves (as contrasted with a waiter spilling it on a patron), almost anything could be fair game .
mcdonald’s had been previously warned (due to other similar incidents) that their coffee was too hot, and they needed to lower the temperature. they never did though, because it was more convenient for them this way, plus, people came specifically to get the hottest coffee around .
.). mcdonald’s declined. following the jury verdict and the trial court’s reduction of the punitive damages award, both parties appealed. before the case was heard on appeal, the parties settled out - of - court for an undisclosed sum. when the settlement was announced, wagner claimed that “mcdonald’s now (is putting) warnings on its coffees as have some of the other fast food chains. that was her principal objective, to make things safe. have you ever had mcdonald’s coffee? it’s hot, hot hot. it’s as hot as the water in your radiator. ” (“mcdonald’s settles suit over burns from coffee, ”
at my local starbucks, i asked the young barista who took my order (grande 1 percent latte) how hot the store brews its coffee. “we brew it at 200 degrees, ” she said. (that is also the standard recommended by the specialty coffee association of america. )
he counters the film’s arguments nimbly, pointing out that overall economic caps like those that affected the gourleys are relatively rare, compared with restrictions on punitive damages and compensation for pain and suffering. as for the coffee case, he said, other juries have not awarded damages in similar cases, and while ms. liebeck’s defenders cite hundreds of hot - coffee complaints to mcdonalds, he noted that billions of cups were sold over the same span .
the coffee industry itself recommends brewing at 195 - 205 and storing at 180 - 190 .
the evidence presented at trial indicated that ms. liebeck would have suffered the same extent of burns had she been served coffee at a temperature as low as 130 degrees. the national coffee association actually recommends that coffee be brewed at a temperature between 195 - 205 degrees. in addition, coffee is typically served in the 170 - 180 degree range even today .
christopher appleton (mcdonald’s manager of quality assurance). viewed as an ineffective witness, mr. appleton apparently admitted that he was aware of the risk of hot coffee and had no plans to reduce the temperature. (
most damning of all, as readers of posts in this space (especially those by ted frank) will recall, jones was given center stage in susan saladoff’s film “hot coffee, ” which periodically airs on hbo and on college campuses and has established itself as one of the litigation industry’s most durable and successful propaganda vehicles. all future discussion of “hot coffee” — and certainly any cable / broadcast airings or public screenings whose sponsors care about accuracy and fairness — will need to warn audiences that the jones case can now be seen in retrospect as almost unrecognizably different from the picture of it presented in that trial - lawyer - produced “documentary. ” if this is what becomes of one of saladoff’s central cases, how reliable ought we to consider the rest of her film ?
hot coffee
is an eye - opener. but, be forewarned. when see what the insurance companies have done to manipulate the public (including you), you will feel like a fool for ...
written and produced by saladoff, the film offers four case studies to illustrate the alleged dark side of tort reform. beginning with the liebeck case, saladoff argues that corporations improperly exploited that famed case to promote massive tort reform. specifically, hot coffee alleges that the american tort reform association and the united states chamber of commerce misrepresented the liebeck case and duped many state legislatures into passing caps on certain recoverable damages. further, the film suggests that these advocacy groups devastated america’s civil justice system by funding the judicial campaigns of candidates willing to serve corporate interests at the expense of consumers and sympathetic plaintiffs. (the film points to three other cases, as well, though they are less famous than the liebeck case .) .
“……namely, they could produce ten more cups of coffee from a 10 lb bag of coffee by brewing at the 180 - 190 temperature range as opposed to the recommended 140 - 160…. . ”
the fact of the matter is that hot coffee is served, and enjoyed, hot, just as hot food is. interestingly, today, on its website, the national coffee association advises that “ [ y ] our brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195–205 degrees fahrenheit for optimal extraction” and that “ [ i ] f it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180–185 degrees fahrenheit. ” even in 1994, the national coffee association confirmed that mcdonalds’ serving temperatures were within industry guidelines (and many restaurateurs have found that their customers complain if they lower the temperature of their coffee). just because a product can cause serious injury when handled negligently, does not mean that the product is unreasonably dangerous when and if used properly .
o my god that’s one of the most ridiculous trials in the history of law. she was as old as coffee how did she not know it was hot. in my opinion that trial was a waste of time and money .
13. at no location did mr. jarrett record the temperature of freshly served coffee below 130° .
i think people are missing a major point. imagine if she hadn’t spilled the coffee. if the coffee did that much damage to her legs (where the skin tissue is considerably stronger), imagine what the coffee would have done to her mouth, throat and esophagus if she had actually drank it .
by “skirting around, ” we meant to imply that, to our knowledge, saladoff has never, either in her interviews or documentary, responded to the central premise of her critics that coffee is a beverage meant to be served hot. in her reference to the jury’s allocation of fault, saladoff addresses only liebeck’s act of spilling the coffee placed between her legs. as we have suggested all along, coffee by its nature is meant to be served hot. our guess is that liebeck would have been disappointed and may have even complained had she been served coffee at a lesser temperature. this issue was presented to saladoff in the interview, but we found saladoff’s answer non - responsive .
burns were not the result of serving excessively hot coffee, as other restaurants in this community have been demonstrated to serve coffee at temperatures which, for the sake of argument, might be lower than those served at the mcdonald’s in question, but which also were high enough temperatures to have still caused the type of injuries and burns that ms .
hbo documentary films; if not now and the group entertainment present a film by susan saladoff; directed by susan saladoff; produced by carly hugo, alan oxman, susan saladoff .
as a connoisseur of hot - coffee cases, i’m always excited to see a court get one right. the abnormal use blog points us to colbert v. sonic restaurants, no. 09 - 1423, 2010 wl 3769131 (w. d. la. sept. 21, 2010). the plaintiff made the usual gamut of “design defect” and “failure to warn” claims, but the court wasn’t buying it. note that the plaintiff claimed to be injured by the coffee at sonic restaurants, yet another refutation of the trial - lawyer claim that stella liebeck’s mcdonald’s coffee was unusually hot .
hot coffee / susan saladoff; carly hugo; alan oxman; al franken; john grisham; martina radwan; cindy lee, (film editor); michael r mollura; joel goodman; hbo documentary films. ; if not now productions. ; group entertainment (firm); docurama (firm); new video group. ;; [ united states ]: docurama films: new video (distributor), ©2011 .
stella liebeck who sued mcdonald’s after being severely burned by coffee, becoming a national symbol of frivolous lawsuits .
chris hemsworth kicks off filming for the star - studded men in black spin - off as he cuts a sharp figure in london... 21 years after the first film hit screens
the 2011 hbo documentary hot coffee, directed by susan saladoff, focuses on big business attempts and successes in controlling the judicial system in limiting the amount of damages that can be paid out to individuals for their wrong - doing and / or neglect .
hot coffee also documents the story of oliver diaz, a former mississippi supreme court justice, to accuse the u. s. chamber of commerce of funneling money into the judicial campaigns of pro - tort reform candidates. the film suggests that diaz found himself running against a candidate hand picked and funded by the chamber. but here’s the catch: the film concedes that trial lawyers often donate to their own judicial candidates. but the film attempts to minimize this fact by noting that trial lawyers are limited by law in the amount of money they can donate. this seems a bit unfair, right? big corporations are buying seats for judges while trial lawyers must sit idly by due to unfair, oppressive campaign finance laws? is the story truly so bleak for trial lawyers and their own advocacy groups? not really .
we have become a society that totes hot liquids everywhere. our palms seem to be permanently attached to an elongated cup with a plastic lid .
also, the faq section dealing with liebeck’s cases curiously lacks any discussion about the economic motives of mcdonald’s to brew its coffee at higher temperatures. namely, they could produce ten more cups of coffee from a 10 lb bag of coffee by brewing at the 180 - 190 temperature range as opposed to the recommended 140 - 160 .
because the twenty - year - old stella liebeck case is getting another round of attention on some blogs — susan saladoff’s short film hot coffee having served quite successfully to keep the trial lawyers’ side of the controversy in circulation — it’s worth a closer look at the latest in jim dedman’s (abnormal use) writings deflating the case’s mythos [ defense research institute dri today, previously briefly noted in a roundup a couple of weeks ago ]. excerpt :
testified that the number of prior coffee burn victims was statistically trivial in comparison to the number of cups sold .
btw… wht did mcdonalds really get out of this… well they turned down the temp. . they started making fresh coffee throughout the day instead of superheated “coffee” once… they became knows as having good fresh coffee and now, playing off that, even gone into the mccafe business… netting 100s of millions… poor por mcdonalds! !! ! !
the infamous spill. although it occurred over twenty years ago, plaintiffs’ lawyers despised the publicity that surrounded the so - called “hot coffee case. ” the “hot coffee case” spotlights stella liebeck, an elderly woman who in the early 1990s, while sitting in the passenger seat in a car at a mcdonald’s restaurant in new mexico, spilled a cup of coffee on herself. this spill resulted in very serious third degree burns which are shown graphically in the movie. while ms. liebeck’s injury is indeed tragic, the fundamental fact remains that, however terrible her injuries, a mcdonald’s employee did not spill the coffee on ms. liebeck, she spilled the coffee on herself. the automobile in which she was a passenger did not have a coffee cup holder. that fact had not been well publicized until the movie. under the movie’s thesis that others are to blame for one’s own conduct, one might wonder why ms. liebeck did not bring a design liability claim against the manufacturer of the automobile because it lacked cup holders. if there had been a coffee cup holder, she might not have spilled the coffee on herself. perhaps her lawyers thought that mcdonald’s was an easier target .
hot coffee does an excellent job presenting its position in a clear and compelling manner, illustrating its arguments with actual cases. as fascinating as the documentary subject was, i was happy to have the primary source material available via westlawnext to further inform my opinion .
we haven’t addressed the mandatory arbitration issue for a reason. our interest in this documentary derived primarily from our interest in the hot coffee case itself. for that reason, much of our discussion has focused on that issue with a bit of tort reform overlay .
stuever does not, for some reason, name any proponent of reform who has actually asserted either of the propositions. do you think that might be because he’s trafficking in absurd caricatures? (earlier on “hot coffee” here, here, here, etc. )
you are correct in that the film is not only about the mcdonald’s case, but i do believe that us defense nerds would have loved to see an 88 - minute expose on the subject .
if you re - read the section of my review documenting the facts presented in the film, i actually did mention the 700 prior burns. that piece of evidence is often quoted and it does raise some interesting issues. through our research, we have reason to believe that the 700 burns were not exclusively from coffee (or any other hot beverage for that matter). in any event, mcdonald’s has sold over a billion cups of coffee, so even at 700, the number of burns is miniscule (according to the testimony of the human factors expert at trial) .
a. the coffee purchased by her on 2 / 27 / 92 was unreasonably dangerous because it was excessively hot and defendants are liable to her for the physical and mental harm which it caused at the time of its sale and consumption on 2 / 27 / 92 .
just a quick heads - up: if you can, watch hot coffee on hbo tonight at 9 p. m. est. remember the 1994 court case of the woman who was awarded $ 2. 9 million for spilling a cup of mcdonald’s coffee on herself? it even became a plot point in an episode of seinfeld. well, you don’t know the half of it .
the mcdonald' s coffee case has been routinely cited by the media as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of the legal system. we will show how this case became so popular in the media, who funded the effort and to what end. we will tell the truth and let the audience decide if spilling hot coffee is really as profitable as they might otherwise believe .
would have suffered the same extent of burns had she been served coffee at a temperature as low as 130 degrees .
hot coffee is a slick production. the music is good. the photography is excellent, and the acting to try to get and bring ms. saladoff’s points home, is superb. propaganda is at an apex with “villains” (president bush, karl rove, certain business groups), as well as heroes and heroines, the victims. but, will americans see that the movie is a half cup of coffee with major facts left out in every single segment? will the audience realize that both sides of any of the four issues: the hot coffee case, tort reform and limits on damages, judicial elections, and mandatory arbitration, are not presented ?
mcdonald’s corp. sold its coffee at 180 - 190 degrees fahrenheit by corporate specification. mcdonald’s coffee, if spilled, could cause full - thickness burns (third degree to the muscle / fatty tissue layer) in two to seven seconds .
the parking lot movie is a documentary about a singular parking lot in charlottesville, virginia. the film follows a select group of parking lot attendants and their strange rite of passage... see full summary »
of course that wasn’t really the filmmaker’s goal. ms. saladoff is, as a lawyer and now a director, an advocate. one of several strands in the film, ms. liebeck’s story shows how tort reformers deftly spun her case and others to nudge public opinion and argue for the need to shut down what industry advocates called “jackpot justice. ” the film also lays out facts of the case that are rarely heard .
you might want to consider that this documentary is simply propaganda for the other side of the equation: the trial lawyers. for those who believe that mcd had fair warning – as mentioned in the film – it received 700 complaints on 10 billion cups of coffee or. 007% . so like many things, most films have an axe to grind
those who see the documentary may likely be persuaded of the “evils of tort reform. ” saladoff brilliantly selects cases that tug on the emotional heart strings of even the most stoic of viewers. after witnessing the struggle of parents attempting to provide for a brain damaged child or hearing a woman explain her unsuccessful quest for a jury trial after being brutally raped by co - workers, uninformed viewers may leave the film with a distaste for tort reform – at least as saladoff presents it. as a filmmaker and “documentarian, ” saladoff is persuasive, and she has garnered much attention from hollywood for her efforts. (indeed, non lawyer film critics are falling for her propaganda). cynical as we are, and willing to dig deeper than casual viewers, we here at abnormal use are not so easily persuaded. once one cuts through hot coffee ‘s emotionalism, we see a film that exploits the mcdonald’s case and other sympathetic litigants to promote saladoff’s own personal agenda .
these days, with so many choices on the coffee menu, customers may be more protected today from a scalding by inadvertent shields. in 1992, little in the way of milky coffee drinks was available that would act to drop the temperature a few degrees .
i thought you might be interested in this item at urltoken title: hot coffee author: susan saladoff; carly hugo; alan oxman; al franken; john grisham; martina radwan; cindy lee, (film editor); michael r mollura; joel goodman; hbo documentary films; if not now productions; group entertainment (firm); docurama (firm); new video group publisher: [ united states ]: docurama films: new video (distributor), ©2011. isbn / issn: 1422973190 9781422973196 oclc: 747048493
in selectively presenting these facts in this fashion, saladoff contends liebeck’s lawsuit was meritorious simply because she suffered actual damages and failed to show any desire to get - rich - quick. unfortunately, it is not the presence of actual damages and a noble spirit which keeps a case from being frivolous. in fact, saladoff neglects to address the point often made here at abnormal use: coffee is meant to be served hot and does not become “unreasonably dangerous” until negligently spilled by the consumer. this past week, when asked about our assertions on national public radio, saladoff skirted around the issue, citing the same line that mcdonald’s knew that hot coffee was, in fact, hot. apparently, any effort to challenge her on that point is just another dirty corporate disinformation campaign .
i do not order scalding coffee, nor do i have a reasonable expectation of doing so. i have an expectation of getting hot coffee just as i have the reasonable expectation that when i see a physician i will receive care and aid. when this doesn’t happen, then my open avenue to recourse allows me, a single individual, to influence the system, however minute, toward a greater benefit for both myself and others .
not to mention the variety of insulated, metal refillable travel mugs, with any number of push - button, sliding openings from which to sip a hot or cold brew .
our original piece chronicling saladoff’s history as a plaintiff’s lawyer and longtime affiliation with the association of trial lawyers of america rang truer than we even realized. in fact, it was cited just yesterday in the new york times by its legal correspondent john schwartz who, however, downplayed saladoff’s possible lack of objectivity. (we wonder what schwartz would think about an environmental film produced by an oil company .). schwartz did concede, though, that saladoff is an “advocate. ” as editorialists ourselves, we would never object to someone simply expressing a point of view; we love the vast marketplace of ideas (though we find saladoff’s background highly relevant to the message she offers). in this case, our goal is, and has always been, to expose potential bias and inconsistency, especially in light of the film’s presentation as an objective documentary peddling in previously unknown “truths. ” just as saladoff accuses the media of exploiting an allegedly meritorious hot coffee case, hot coffee is guilty of the same offense. saladoff preys on the emotions of viewers to advance her profession’s own special interests .
mcdonald’s had full knowledge that they were serving their coffee too hot – they just didn’t care. this type of incident had happened several times before mrs. liebeck’s incident. just like a restaurant is responsible for ensuring that the food that they serve is not too cold, they are also responsible for ensuring that they do not serve food and beverages that are not too hot. there are, and have been, established guidelines for the appropriate temperatures. mcdonald’s just chose to disregard these guidelines .
this section of the film explores the idea / beliefs that states with caps on damages in malpractice suits, especially, will see a decrease in the cost of health care. this proves to be untrue, only protecting malpractice insurance companies .
firm who executed a summary judgment affidavit setting forth coffee temperature measurements he took at six local restaurants as a part of the defense case .
finally, the film tells the story of jamie leigh jones, a young women who, while working for kbr / halliburton in iraq, was drugged, raped, and then place in a shipping container by the company until eventually rescued. her case led to federal legislation spearheaded by sen. al franken (d - mn), who has a prominent role in hot coffee. jamie' s civil trial is happening as we speak. she fought for six years just to get before a jury because the company tried to force jamie into secretive mandatory binding arbitration instead .
but not just any cup. this one — called versalite, with 20 patents pending, and currently being tested in several markets — is a disposable cup that insulates the liquid to keep hot coffee from cooling but also to keep the cup from feeling hot to the touch. “we’ve known for a long time that there’s been a need for a better insulating cup, ” said jon rich, president and chief executive of berry plastics. (incidentally, the versalite cup performs the same function for cold drinks. )
trial, known as the mcdonald’s hot coffee case, has become such a fixture of litigation lore that many are unaware of the basic facts of the case, or even where and when it was tried. litigated and reported upon before the rise of the internet, much of what appears online about the case is the worst sort of
susan saladoff' s hot coffee concerns tort reform politics in the united states and the controversy surrounding such reform. the film is named after the infamous lawsuit that people have greatly shortchanged in its details, editorialized for their own amusement, or wrote off as senseless and that of little importance. the lawsuit is liebeck v. mcdonald' s restaurants, which was enacted when an elderly woman named stella liebeck spilled a cup of mcdonald' s coffee on her lap while sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew' s car in the restaurant' s parking lot. the cup, which was said to be at roughly 180 - 190 degrees fahrenheit, left liebeck with third degree burns and skin grafts to repair most of her lap .
the film’s most powerful argument, however, might be the horrifying photographic evidence of ms. liebeck’s third - degree burns, presented indirectly at first through shocked reaction shots during man - on - the - street interviews. then the audience gets to see .
one day in 1992 stella liebeck spilled a cup of mcdonald’s coffee into her lap. ever since, people have been fighting over what really happened .
and scanned the decision. as discussed in the film, the bulk of the award was for punitive damages in the amount of $ 2, 700, 000. i clicked on the keycite button and took a look at some of related filings. upon reading the
we now have that little cardboard thing that goes around the disposable cup so you can hold a cup of hot coffee without discomfort. (it actually has a name: the zarf, and one jay sorenson is said to have invented it in 1993 and he holds a patent on it under the trademark java jacket. now multiple companies make them. )
10. as part of this survey, mr. jarrett used a standard food thermometer and measured the temperature of coffee brewed and maintained at these locations .
11. mr. jarrett’s measurements of coffee were taken when it was first served to him, after approximately 15 minutes, and after approximately 30 minutes .
last week, my wife and i happened upon “hot coffee”, the 2011 documentary film analyzing the impact of tort reform on the judicial system, in our often neglected dvr queue while looking for something to watch before turning in for the night. i recollected that when i had set the recording a few weeks back, i felt smugly self - satisfied that i had chosen to record a serious documentary germane to my profession. yet, the facts that i had yet to watch said documentary and that i spent the entire previous saturday knee - deep in a doctor who marathon were ugly reminders that my tastes in entertainment remained decidedly escapist .
that message may be getting across. ann hornaday of the washington post, reviewing the film at the sundance festival, wrote that it provided “the kind of narrative that sends audiences out of the theater thinking in a brand - new way about something they thought they understood. ”
he also complained that his comments in the film were selectively edited to make him look more supportive of the film’s argument. ms. saladoff used part of a quotation, for example, in which mr. schwartz acknowledged that money flooding into judicial elections may not be a good thing; but he said she should have also used his argument that the business lobby increased contributions in response to earlier contributions from plaintiffs’ lawyers. “both points i make are valid, ” he said, but “the money really began with the plaintiffs’ lawyers, big time. ”
the point is, the world now caters to the coffee drinker. the idea of getting into a car without cup holders and lifting the lid off the cup in order to add milk and sugar and drink the coffee, as the facts of the case show ms. liebeck did that morning, seems strangely anachronistic .
( burn specialist). dr. baxter offered his opinion at trial that coffee served at 180 degrees was excessive and could not be consumed at that temperature. dr. baxter opined that the optimal temperature range to serve coffee was between 155 and 160 degrees. (historical footnote: he operated on president kennedy and governor
this would conceivably lower the number of people having to open lids, and the coffee temperature is lowered by adding the cream and / or sugar and stirring .
back in february 1992, when stella liebeck ordered the 8 - ounce cup of mcdonald’s coffee that would famously spill and turn her, briefly, into a court - made millionaire — until the amount, the video reports, was lowered to about $ 500, 000 — we were not the coffee culture we would become .
hot coffee is a documentary that will leave you both stunned and enlightened about the misconceptions we have about civil lawsuits, in this case, and in general. stella liebeck, 79 years - old, suffered third - degree burns within seven seconds of opening a cup of mcdonald’s coffee while sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car. all she asked for in bringing a lawsuit was the difference between what medicare paid for and her medical bills. (liebeck required skin grafts and other operations .) it was a jury that awarded her the large sum — which the jury noted represented a mere two days of mcdonald’s coffee sales. the judge reduced that sum, and the case was settled out of court .
and any other consumers that purchase coffee in the defective state in which it is sold by defendants, and for the marketing defect of no warning, or in the alternative, insufficient warning, because mcdonald’s corporation and mcdonald’s restaurants p. t. s. , inc. fully know of and are aware of innumerable burn cases caused by the fault, or in the alternative, negligence of their operations in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of extremely hot coffee. for this, plaintiff comes now and sues in the amount of three times compensatory damages for punitive damages .
the film also uses the story of lisa and mike gourley, a nebraska couple, to illustrate the effects of caps on damages. the gourleys’ son colin was born in 1993 with cerebral palsy attributed to medical malpractice. a jury awarded them $ 5. 6 million to pay his lifelong medical needs .
interestingly, today, on its website, the national coffee association advises that “ [ y ] our brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195–205 degrees fahrenheit for optimal extraction” and that “ [ i ] f it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180–185 degrees fahrenheit. ” even in 1994, the national coffee association confirmed that mcdonalds’ serving temperatures were within industry guidelines (and many restaurateurs have found that their customers complain if they lower the temperature of their coffee) .
speaking in regards to your statement that hot coffee is only dangerous when it is spilled by the negligent customer doesn’t really hold water in my book. it’s like saying that a broken threshold in the doorway is only dangerous when the customer negligently steps on it. the fact is that her injuries were foreseeable, as mcdonalds had received many such complaints in the past. foreseeability is a necessary component of negligence .
saladoff declined multiple requests from abnormal use for interviews, both in january and this week prior to the film’s hbo premier. (actually, she initially accepted an interview request in january, then canceled at the last minute after the interview had been scheduled, and we never heard from her again .) .
despite the fact that the review above goes easy on the hot coffee in these two respects, i thought the review was wrong to call this movie “propaganda, ” which i think is a term that is too easily abused. we need to raise the standard for what we consider genuine “propaganda, ” because the way we use the term now it basically means “a point of view i don’t agree with. ”
@ johnny o’hannah i’d like to point out that the liebeck incident took place in 1992. cupholders in vehicles were not standard until 1996. where should she have put her coffee ?
despite the short shrift the liebeck case receives in the film, saladoff argues that there are certain facts of the liebeck case that were either somehow concealed from the public or never brought to light which, if known, would change the perception of the case from frivolous to somehow meritorious. those facts are these :
a longtime leader of the tort reform movement, victor e. schwartz, appears in the film and pronounced himself unhappy with the result. “i’ve seen lots of plaintiffs’ lawyers’ propaganda — nothing like this, ” he said. “it’s very well produced, but it may lead people to believe something that’s not true. ”
in 1992, stella liebeck spilled scalding mcdonald’s coffee in her lap and later sued the company, attracting a flood of negative attention. it turns out there was more to the story .
to mediate the dispute and ordered the parties to “make a good faith effort to resolve and completely settle all pending issues. ” (“conference ordered on spilled coffee, ” associated press,
hot coffee is a 2011 documentary film that analyzes and discusses the impact of tort reform on the united states judicial system . it is directed by susan saladoff , who has practiced as a medical malpractice attorney for at least 26 years . the film premiered at the 2011 sundance film festival on january 24 , 2011 , and later aired on hbo on june 27 , 2011 , as a part of hbo films documentary summer series . the title is derived from the liebeck v. mcdonald 's restaurants lawsuit , in which the plaintiff liebeck was severely burned after spilling into her lap hot coffee purchased from a mcdonald 's . 
hot coffee is a 2011 documentary film that analyzes and discusses the impact of tort reform on the united states judicial system. it is directed by susan saladoff, who has practiced as a medical malpractice attorney for at least 26 years. the film premiered at the 2011 sundance film festival on january 24, 2011, and later aired on hbo on june 27, 2011, as a part of hbo films documentary summer series. the title is derived from the liebeck v. mcdonald's restaurants lawsuit, in which the plaintiff liebeck was severely burned after spilling into her lap hot coffee purchased from a mcdonald's.
hot coffee is a 2011 documentary film that analyzes and discusses the impact of tort reform on the united states judicial system. it is directed by susan saladoff, who has practiced as a medical malpractice attorney for at least 26 years. the film premiered at the 2011 sundance film festival on january 24, 2011, and later aired on hbo on june 27, 2011, as a part of hbo films documentary summer series. the title is derived from the liebeck v. mcdonald's restaurants lawsuit, in which the plaintiff liebeck was severely burned after spilling into her lap hot coffee purchased from a mcdonald's.