How The Tort Reform Has Impacted Individuals ' Constitutional And Civil Rights

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

The court didn’t approve summary judgment for product liability claims because the Nadel’s failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at 175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second-degree burns. The articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have no value as evidence.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

Since about the mid-late 1980’s many states have implemented and enforced statutes to limit tort lawsuits. Tort reform is the political term for redefining tort laws and reducing tort litigation, damages, compensation, and even amounts awarded (Quinn). The reformation of the nation’s tort system, or changing laws throughout a state dealing with injuries to a person or their property have done a lot more harm than good for consumers. While each tort reform law varies depending on the state, they all have one of the following goals in mind: “(1) to make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit, (2) to make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial, (3) to place limits on the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit (Lane).”

Next, Mr. Morgan "then filed a formal complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in New Mexico alleging that the coffee was defective because it was excessively, dangerously hot, and because adequate warnings were not provided regarding the risks of the coffee at that temperature" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 348). It is essential to recognize that "the claim was based on products liability law, specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code, alleging breach of warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). "The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages (on the grounds that McDonald's exhibited reckless indifference in selling the coffee)" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Once Mr. Morgan set the date for the trial, he attempted to settle with McDonald's for $300,000, but the company refused the offer (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Shortly before the trial, the judge ordered that mediation be used in an attempt to resolve the case. "The mediator recommended a settlement of $225,000, McDonald's refused, and the case went to trial" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p.

This is just one lawsuit out of a few that the coffee giant is being accused of. Others include cold drinks and the amount of ice to coffee ratio.

This case is by no means easy to judge or come to a conclusion. A large portion of the award was due to pain and suffering. It is a bit difficult to fully understand the high payout and how the amount was deemed appropriate. It is very difficult to assess a sum for spilled coffee. The jury really considered the time it took to recover and not to mention her treatment expenses. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Liebeck wanted to initially settle out of court for 20,000 dollars, which McDonalds refused. Refusing to settle out of court opened the doors to litigation and ultimately cost McDonalds in this case.

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

Hot Coffee Review The documentary Hot Coffee is about four different cases where people sued companies and corporations for being harmed, mistreated, harassed, and raped. A 81 year old lady, Stella Liebeck, went to McDonald’s for a cup of coffee with her son when she spilled the 170-180 degrees fahrenheit coffee on her legs in her car. Then, she was given no more than 800 dollars from McDonald’s on a 10,000 medical problem. Liebeck went to trial on August 8-12 with Mcdonald's and was awarded 2.9 million dollars by the jury after suing McDonald’s for making their coffee too hot, but later her award was reduced to 480,000 dollars.

Nadel was taking his kids to school and his mother Evelyn was riding with them. His son, Christopher was in the front seat next to him and Evelyn was in the passenger seat. They stopped at Burger King in order to get two cups of coffee for the ride. They were handed two cups in a cardboard drink carrier and the cups were completely full. Christopher received second-degree burns on his right foot from the spilled coffee. Nadel sued for breach of a warranty of merchantability and breach of a warranty for a particular purpose. Nadel said that there was no official warning from Burger King. Burger King moved for

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

The case of Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald is an interesting and controversial case with divided opinions implying responsibility on Stella Liebeck because she did not took care of a hot liquid that she ended spilling on herself and others on McDonald’s that pour hot liquid in an excessive high temperature being a risk for its customers if an accident occur like in Stella Liebeck’s case.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.