This "documentary" has a clear agenda and gives no counterpoints to the claims it provides. That's not necessarily a problem in itself, but when they try to defend the ridiculous "hot coffee" case, with the only argument being "hot coffee is hot", it starts getting silly.
Otherwise it's a decent enough timewaster, but no real substance.
This "documentary" has a clear agenda and gives no counterpoints to the claims it provides. That's not necessarily a problem in itself, but when they try to defend the ridiculous "hot coffee" case, with the only argument being "hot coffee is hot", it starts getting silly.
You don't have to put the word documentary in quotes. The definition of the word, when applied to a movie, is that they don't use actors. Documentaries don't have to be unbiased. They just have to use the real people, places and things in their film.
Some of the movie Hot Coffee has things I agree with, some I disagree, and some I am not sure. But don't trash a whole genre of film!
I bet there are people on both of the ridiculous extremes on these issues. There are people who believe every little thing that happens to someone can be traced back to a mistake someone else made, as long as you go far back enough, and the "victim" should get paid.
And just as likely, there are people who believe that anything that happens to you is just what was meant to be, so nothing is anyone's fault. No matter what anyone does against you, suck it up.
Anyone can make a documentary film, and no one has to agree with it.
I agree, though bias in a documentary is kind of unavoidable. The subject that the filmmaker chooses shows bias in itself. That said, balance is absolutely the key to a good doc. Recently saw one called Programming the Nation which approaches a kind of loopy topic in a very grounded fashion. Seek it out. http://bitly.com/raMjYx?r=bb
shareOMG A DOCUMENTARY HAS AN OPINION! AND IT RUNS COUNTER TO MY OWN! NOT IN MY AMERICA
shareMy biggest problem with this is that not once did they ever address the fact that it is 100% normal for hot beverages to come from a restaurant fresh out of the pot. They kept bringing up the temperature and how hot it was and what that can do to human skin, as if nobody knew that boiling hot water could burn you badly, or that coffee often was near boiling hot. I understand that the "official" way to make coffee shouldn't have it be at true boiling temperatures, but when I get a cup of coffee, I buy it with the full expectation that it will burn me horribly if I don't let it cool down first, and this has been common knowledge long before this case. If coffee was normally served lukewarm and it was unusual to have it hot, then sure she'd have a case, but it's been common knowledge since the first hot cup of coffee was brewed that itll *beep* you up if you spill it on yourself.
shareThe issue was how hot it was. McD's coffee was hotter than any other chain, they had a history of paying off burn victims, were previously cited for the coffee issue, and did not change their practice because "too hot to drink right away" coffee disinclined people from taking free refills.
To take this to court was stupid on their part considering all that info and considering the severity of the burns and how sympathetic the victim was.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
BINGO!
The reasoning would be no different than if anyone attempted to hold a hot clothes iron between their legs. Sure, if you hold it right(which really comes down to luck more than control of the situation), you COULD keep from getting scalded but no sensible person would attempt such a thing because of what would happen if things go wrong(like someone in front of you suddenly braking, hitting a pothole or speed bump you weren't aware of or suddenly having to stop because the light changed to red before you could make it through the intersection). That's because common sense would make you ask yourself, "Why take such a stupid chance?". Either wait until the iron cools down and be safe about it or, better yet, transport the iron properly i.e NOT between your legs.
Seriously, think about it people. Would you try to hold a hot clothes iron between your legs while driving in your car during the morning commute? Also, would you still be siding with anyone else who sued the iron company over burns they incurred when they attempted it?
Everyone has the right to be stupid. Most abuse the privilege.
The reasoning would be no different than if anyone attempted to hold a hot clothes iron between their legs. Sure, if you hold it right(which really comes down to luck more than control of the situation), you COULD keep from getting scalded but no sensible person would attempt such a thing because of what would happen if things go wrong(like someone in front of you suddenly braking, hitting a pothole or speed bump you weren't aware of or suddenly having to stop because the light changed to red before you could make it through the intersection). That's because common sense would make you ask yourself, "Why take such a stupid chance?". Either wait until the iron cools down and be safe about it or, better yet, transport the iron properly i.e NOT between your legs.
Seriously, think about it people. Would you try to hold a hot clothes iron between your legs while driving in your car during the morning commute? Also, would you still be siding with anyone else who sued the iron company over burns they incurred when they attempted it?
A cup of coffee and an iron are 2 very different things. The woman was not driving. The car was not moving. The woman was 80yrs old. Holding the cup with her legs was prolly safer than using her hands at that age.
Nobody expects the severity of the burns she suffered.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
It's pretty clear that most of the people commenting in this thread haven't even watched the documentary...
shareBoth are hot things that could scald you if they touch you the wrong way and both are things you would normally not try to hold between your legs when they are THAT hot especially if you are trying to do something else at the same time. Plus, let's get one thing out of the way...when you are served coffee at a restaurant or any other purveyor of edible goods, do you expect it to be cold or at a tempurature that could conceivable (at the least) scald you if you spilled it on yourself?
And, if she was that old, she shouldn't have been attempting such a 'delicate manuever' in the first place whether the car was moving or not. I mean, if the car wasn't moving, it proves my point even more so because that means she was too old to handle the coffee when there wasn't anything to distract her. Seriously, all she had to do was concentrate on holding the coffee properly and she couldn't even do that by itself. Not only that but, being 80 years old, she should have long since learned that fresh coffee is always served at or near boiling temperature.
I'm sorry but, although I do feel sympathy for her for being burned as badly as she was, I won't excuse her for doing something so blatantly stupid or the fact that she shouldn't have been doing such things in the first place and at her advanced age like driving herself around or handling a cup of coffee. In other words, it is my opinion that most of the fault in this situation lies with her(and her family for not making sure she is properly taken care of) and not McDonald's.
One man's mundane and desperate existence is another man's...technicolor.
I'm sorry but, although I do feel sympathy for her for being burned as badly as she was, I won't excuse her for doing something so blatantly stupid or the fact that she shouldn't have been doing such things in the first place and at her advanced age like driving herself around or handling a cup of coffee. In other words, it is my opinion that most of the fault in this situation lies with her(and her family for not making sure she is properly taken care of) and not McDonald's.
You don't even know the fundamental facts here, friend. And that's a big problem. She WAS NOT driving. Someone else was driving. He pulled the car over so she could prepare the coffee without any movement.
She was burned TO THE F_UCKING BONE. NOBODY considers any such thing a possibility. Coffee can burn badly, nobody thinks they'd be burned THAT badly and have to pay THAT much in medical costs and recovery time.
So when you wanna talk about "fault"; she spilled coffee. That's an accident. That happens. The only extraordinary aspect is how profoundly severe her burns were and that McD's knew via 700 prior documented cases that people are being SEVERELY burned, beyond reasonable expectations by their coffee.
They did nothing about it. They intentionally made the coffee too hot in order to cut down on customers taking free refills. And they consider their costumers going to the hospital and maybe doling out a bit here and there to them, as the most cost effective line to take.
Then they didn't even wanna do that much anymore and figured they'd nip the "problem" in the bud and go to court with this case.
F_uck them. I don't understand this mentality that puts human beings below the bottom line.
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
...she spilled coffee
Although, you are assuming that because I say all of this that I don't think McD's should have at least paid the medical and rehabilitation costs. I think they should have but only that and no more simply because the coffee was as hot as it was. That was their fault and they should have taken responsibility for it from the get-go. I am in complete agreement that, when they shirked this responsibility, they deserved any monetary punishment the lady could get out of the case.
Then we agree. They had that opportunity to just cover her medical costs. They made the choice to take it to court and it was really stupid.
Like I said, they had 700 documented cases where they paid out. Why they picked a sympathetic old lady who got burned to the bone as the one to fight is beyond common sense.
And beyond that they had been cited prior for making the coffee excessively hot/dangerous and did nothing about it. So they hung themselves.
But it's not like they really were hurt at all by this, and they clearly won the PR war after the fact. And I think her payout was slashed as well. So.....
"That's what a gym teacher once told me."
she was not driving, her grandson was driving
try watching a film before you make stupid comments about it
they might be less stupid
A documentary with a "clear agenda." You don't know much about the genre do you? Every documentary presents a nonfiction story from whatever point they want. The author is not obliged to tell your side of the story. "Hot Coffee" gives plenty of counterpoint. You didn't watch this film. George W Bush is seen a good bit of the film stuttering out his position on why corporations would do so much better if people were not awarded the compensation that juries decide. The McDonald's case is exactly the "counterpoint" to the one that most Americans were propgandized to believe was a frivilous lawsuit. If you would have watched the film you would have seen the third degree burns that looked like they burned a hole through her body. McDonald's had 700 cases before and did nothing about the temp of their coffee which was compared by an expert to be that of a car radiator after a day of driving. They have since changed the policy written in their manuals that 800 degrees is bit excessive. That is what lawsuits are intended to do and the reason they are included in our Constitution. This film gives evidence, counterpoints aplenty and will have viewers rethink the propaganda they have been indoctrinated with since the "tort reform" campaign was started. The "counterpoint" that lawsuits cause medical insurance to go up is disproven. You would think this film was more than a "decent enough timewaster" if some corporation's neglect for you caused permanent brain damage. This leads me to ask what is a decent timewaster that DOES have real substance?
share[deleted]
Of course not, because of the fact that it was brought to light about the temperatures their liquids were kept at through the case.
I'm absolutely ashamed and fearful for the human race, based on the people that say this film has no substance and all this other crap.
These are the types of people who think that nothing bad can ever happen to them, that they are not the same as everyone else, that would actually pass crap laws that would eventually hinder them, when that bad stuff happens to them.
And then, unfortunately, would be when the smack upside the head would come, way too late. Because by that point, they've already effectively screwed over everyone else.
You are stating an opinion, I can state fact as from some one that went through this. I spent 4 years making a film only to have my partner steal the film. I have so far spent 3 years trying to get justice. What does this have to do with the film? I signed a contract that required we go through arbitration. I foolishly assumed that the Arbiter was representing the court. It took me two years of constant breeches of multiple contracts to end up in arbitration. I was shocked by the arbitration itself because the other side that was a small corporation was treated like old friends by the arbiter while I was treated badly. The case was so lopsided that the arbiter had little choice but to find in my favor but I was shocked when the verdict made it impossible for me to collect. I won and still lost everything. The film Hot Coffee was a revelation because apparently in our system the arbiters are in effect working for the corporations and are not a neutral party. If you agree to an arbitration clause it makes it effectively impossible to sue the other party. Over all I've lost seven years to this mess. I owned 50% of the film including character rights, it was a CG animated kid's film. The arbiter stripped me of all merchandising and character rights with no explanation and didn't require the other party to pay in order to exploit those rights. He also cut in half the amount owned on the contracts without explaining after he had said he had to base his decision on the contracts. He ignored the contracts and made up an award then made it impossible to enforce. The point is when a corporation is involved in this country you in effect have no rights. All corporations require an arbitration clause knowing that it makes it impossible for you to fight them so they are free to rob you blind and you can't hold them accountable. When some one steal four years of your life and tens of thousands of dollars you invested personally in a project, IT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS! Everyone that believes the right wing conservatives that it's just greedy people ARE SHEEP. Wait until it happens to you and I guarantee you WILL change your opinion! Tort reform is about REMOVING all responsibility from corporations.
FYI, I forgot to mention that I wasn't allowed to record the arbitration and no records were kept. I was frustrated at the time and didn't understand why no records were kept. Now I know why. If I had recorded it anyone could tell that the arbitration was bias and the arbiter would have been in trouble. As it was it was everyone else against me and that includes the arbiter. Arbitration IS A SECRET KANGAROO COURT. Even if you win as I did you have no hope of collecting. If you think Hot Coffee is bias pray you never find yourself in their position because YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!
the OP is right on the money. this documentary was so ridiculously biased i was infuriated while watching it (this, and the other one i just viewed as well: WAITING FOR 'SUPERMAN').
shareWhat about the phone booth case?
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
The blonde from Halliburton was obviously a Cu_t.
Oh yeah, and the ending music sucked _ss!
The horny blonde got what she wanted. then someone told her she can not only enjoy herself but also get paid for getting boned. then she went to court.
the man in the booth didn't however enjoy himself. he ended up worse than dead, an invalid. and thanks to the tort reform he'll be dying pennyless in the street.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
Well what about it?
Again, when all the facts were presented, it wasn't just about some guy being in a phone booth and blaming the phone company for the driver of the car hitting him.
The phone booth had a broken door that wouldn't open. Other people had gotten hurt in that phone booth and the phone company would not fix it.