Hsp Law 1133 – Hot Coffee Documentry Review
Seth ThomasHSP Law 1133Langford3/14/14 “Hot Coffee” Review This was my first time watching, “Hot Coffee” but not my first time hearing about it. I have known that this case and documentary has been around for a while. I also know that both have received a lot of criticism from a lot of different people and sources. I must say that before I really knew very much about this case and had seen this documentary myself I was one of those people who said, “well she spilled it on herself, why is that McDonald’s fault?” Now I see this issue in a different light. The reason that this case had been given so much light in the media was that it was though that 81 year old Stella Liebeck won 2.7 million dollars in punitive damages the Hot Coffee case. When in actuality there was the jury verdict, it was then reduced to 480,000, and then negotiated to an undisclosed amount. People without really knowing about her intent or her injuries thought that Liebeck was just a greedy old women who was being careless and spilled her drink on herself. People thought this was just a frivols lawsuit, and many thought there should have been tort form because of this.
Tort reform is a group of ideas and laws that basically make it harder for injured parties to file a lawsuit, get a jury trial, and limits the money that can be awarded in the case. In the case of Stella Liebeck she would not have been able to receive the payout the she did. Many large businesses say that the reforms are good because it can protect them from greedy people. Not to say there aren’t greedy people in the world, but what about those who did nothing wrong, and cant get what they need because of the reforms, like identical twins Colin and Connor Gouley. When twins Colin and Connor Gouley were born Connor was born normal and Colin was born with several brain damage due to the doctor over looking an issue, as well as complications during birth. The Gouley family was awarded 5.6million dollars for Colins care for the rest of his life to then have it reduced because it was more than the cap put on damages. They were then given only a fraction of the amount they were originally told they would get. They fought this all the way up to the Supreme Court and lost. The Grouley’s said it was unconstitutional because the jury was suppose to be the deciding factor in court, and not be interfered with in tort reforms.