There is a documentary that was recently released called “Hot Coffee” that analyzes the famous McDonald’s court case where a customer, Stella Liebeck, had scalding coffee spill on her lap resulting in severe burns. Leibeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants is one of the most famous recent court cases and has brought much debate about the amount of today’s frivolous lawsuits. Earlier in class this year we have discussed frivolous lawsuits and our views on them. This documentary gives this concept a different spin and showed the story from the other side. Naturally, when the media is the main form of knowledge on a case or anything, there needs to be further unbiased research done to get the full story.
I learned about this film when the former attorney and film director Susan Saladoff appeared on the Colbert Report earlier this year. The film’s website says, “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.”
Although this film is biased, it is important to look at this case from both sides to be able to form a proper opinion on this case and a view on lawsuits and their frivolity. I have yet to see the film which was released at the beginning of this month; however, I plan on watching it. My personal view is that many of these cases are frivolous to a degree but it will be interesting to see how this film argues the opposite.
Below is a link to the film’s website and it has some interesting trailers, videos, and the director’s interview with Stephen Colbert that I referred to earlier.
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp
I completely agree with the jury's verdict that McDonalds was 80% liable and Liebeck was 20% liable under the principles of comparative negligence. Without knowing the facts, it seems like Liebeck is the kind of person that gives America a bad reputation. But the fact that McDonalds required that its coffee be served at a temperature proven to produce third degree burns shows complete disregard for the well being of its customers. Liebeck ended up settling for less than the total of punitive and compensatory damages the judge awarded her, which was $640,000. I believe that Liebeck deserved more than this in punitive damages alone. The coffee was so hot that Liebeck was required to get skin grafts and receive two years of medical treatment for the burns. McDonalds should have paid dearly for this. The jury originally awarded Liebeck with $640,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. These figures seem much more fair to me. I'm guessing the judge thought McDonalds didn't do anything reprehensible enough to warrant this penalty, but $2.7 million would have been pocket change for McDonalds.
ReplyDelete