MovieChat Forums > Hot Coffee (2011) Discussion > Law Student's view

Law Student's view

posted 13 years ago by x_Amadaeus_x
19 replies | jump to latest

Unfortunately I missed a good chunk of the movie due to some satellite problems, but I watched most of it and I was sickened by how blatantly this is anti-tort reform propaganda. Instead of giving an insightful look at the different policy reasons behind the different view points, it just gave sob story after sob story. I don't actually oppose much of tort reform, but this was just a blatantly one sided argument. You de-legitimize your own position when one fails to address the valid points presented by the other side.

There are legitimate times when a legislature needs to be able to restrict a series of common law decisions that a judiciary is unable to undo because of stare decisis. Courts are slow by nature and sometimes we need to be able to move quicker than they allow for for the betterment of our society.

I don't get what they mean by saying that these caps are unconstitutional: they don't violate due process and, in many ways, the regulations of these damage awards could be seen as an extension of Congress's right to regulate interstate commerce. Also keep in mind that in many matters, the jurisdiction of the courts is by virtue of the extensions of their jurisdictions as given by Congress. States have similar rights for actions within their own borders. I'm not going to get into an argument about federalism or Erie Doctrine though.

My basic point is that just saying "GRRR Tort Reform! Business! Bad!" isn't exactly a valid argument. Actually try proposing workable solutions that lead to better policies that advance the positions of all of society. Personally, I think maybe you could get away with less caps if we were able to allow judges to have greater discretion in limiting damage awards, but then again that might be too close to legislating from the branch for some.

Overall, I didn't think this movie had much value other than providing anti-tort reform people with their own propaganda piece. It seemed like a lengthy version of the same sort of commercials for tort reform that had been criticized in this film.

[–] chas437 13 years ago

Well said, this is Micheal Moore "journalism"-cherry pick information, portray events without proper context, find the most egregious heart-tugging cases and make them out to be the norm. Its the template Micheal Moore has given the left for disingenuous propaganda pics. This is one of the weakest I've seen, and frankly shameful for exploiting a rape victim, etc.

As you say there are workbale solutions to tort problems, but this type of polemic propaganda is really counter productive. In the end, people who are greatly harmed by gross negligence DO have a right to some fair compensation, but people need to be accountable for thier own behaviors. The notion that tobacco companies can be sued by people with lung cancer is INSANE. The notion that patients with preexisting ailments can sue doctors for malpractise once things go bad is INSANE. There is a strong case to made for sensible tort reform and the trial lawyers don't like it-thus we get crap like this.

[–] getfuzzy 13 years ago

"The notion that tobacco companies can be sued by people with lung cancer is INSANE. The notion that patients with preexisting ailments can sue doctors for malpractise once things go bad is INSANE. There is a strong case to made for sensible tort reform and the trial lawyers don't like it-thus we get crap like this."

INSANE??? Seriously??? Do a little research before you write off these cases.

"Oooooh, Chocoblock! GIMMEE!" Bucky

[–] chas437 13 years ago

I don't think any tobacco company ever forced anybody to buy cigarettes, or to become a smoker, so yes the idea that you can sue somebody else for your own willfull unhealthy behavior is INSANE. I spoke with my father who practiced medicine during the 70s and 80s, he knew of at least 3 MDs who were successfully sued by patients with terminal illnesses for malpractice. I think thats called a John Edwards special. Maybe you should research how Edwards became the wealthiest man in North Carolina.

Self reliance and personal accountability were the corner stones of this once great nation. Now we are a nation of victims.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelton 13 years ago

The notion that tobacco companies can be sued by people with lung cancer is INSANE. The notion that patients with preexisting ailments can sue doctors for malpractise once things go bad is INSANE.

Bear in mind that a lot of the tobacco lawsuits were filed by individuals who started smoking, and became addicted, BEFORE the Surgeon General's report in 1964, and at a time when the cigarette companies were actually promoting their products as healthful. Yes, there was a time when the tobacco companies actually did that.

And the notion that someone must be Hercules or Apollo in order to sue a doctor for malpractice makes no sense at all. In all medical malpractice actions, the plaintiff must show a breach of the standard of care by the health care provider and damages resulting from the breach.

[–] Malchik81 11 years ago

They were exploiting a woman who started her own foundation and testified before Congress? Seems like she was pretty comfortable with the arguments made in the documentary.

[–] TerrorDementia 11 years ago

chas347, when I was ten or eleven, me and my little buddies would hang out at the corner store, playing arcade games, throwing hand grenades down at cars below the overpass. You know, the usual stuff.

The friendly local Marlboro sales rep would show up, have us join around, and give us little Complimentary Marlboro Lights skinny packs (only 10 cigs per pack). You can be damn sure that we'd always be waiting around for the days he was showing up to service that store!

Now I ask, notwithstanding the fact that this was decades ago and any liability is probably long gone, would it be INSANE for someone in my situation to sue that tobacco company if I'd got lung cancer? Remember, it was their very own sales rep that gave me the product, free of a charge, luring in a group of boys and girls from 9 - 14 years of age, starting them on their long smoking careers. Do you still believe it to be INSANE for a tobacco company to be sued by people with lung cancer, in EVERY situation? Or may have thoughts been broadened?

Quitting is not easy, and impossible for some. It may be impossible for me. 30 years now of smoking (minus several months here and there of quitting), at a rough guess of an average price of $4 per pack, 365 per year, for 30 years, is over $43,000.00 in cigarette sales.

That's some good money coming in for handing out some cheap cigarettes 30 years ago. The risks/rewards were worth it for the company; statute of limitations, the length of time, what's to lose?

But I'd like to know if you still think it'd be INSANE for tobacco companies were sued in a case like that. Because I'm sure me and my little crew weren't the only happy 5th - 8th graders actually getting FREE MARLBOROS! WHOOOHOOO! straight from the Marlboro guy in this entire country. And they knew what they were doing giving them to kids. Get a kid hooked, get a likely product user for life.

[–] chas437 11 years ago

Judy, I've done a lot of research into the issues of health care reform and tort reform over the past year. The result being that I no longer see tort reform as an integral part of overall lowering of health care costs, so, I've essentially flipped on this issue.

The most critical piece of information being the Texas model. Despite tort reform that capped settlements at 250,000, health care costs have risen in Texas at a higher rate than the national average. So, I no longer support tort reform.

I believe Big Tobacco should he held liable for the practices you mention. Its sort of like when the government put cigarettes in the soldiers C-rations all the way up through Vietnam. Tobacco companies would have 100,000s of new customers when the GIs come home. But, preying on kids is more in the criminal sphere.

Save me from the people who would save me from myself

[–] Keelton 13 years ago

Actually try proposing workable solutions that lead to better policies that advance the positions of all of society.

Here's the best solution of all. Don't commit malpractice. Don't sell defective products. Don't wrong others.

In the medical malpractice area, a companion solution would be to remove from the profession the small number of bad doctors who cause most of the payouts, yet are allowed to continue to practice medicine by weak medical disciplinary systems.

Public Citizen analyzed the national data from 1990 to 2002 (the supposed height of the medical malpractice litigation "crisis"), and found that only 5 percent of the doctors were responsible for 54 percent of the malpractice payouts:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=9125

Those figures are now a bit old today, but the same phenomenon has been observed for years.

If there were really all of these "frivolous" lawsuits against innocent doctors, then the payments would be spread much more evenly.

There are also insurance reforms, such as evening out premium costs among all doctors, rather than among only the doctors within an individual specialty.

I have never understood damage caps. They are based on the following "reasoning": We have a problem with claims payouts, so we're going to solve it by punishing the people who are most seriously injured and most in need of compensation. That makes no sense at all.

[–] layers-848-530779 13 years ago

Go back to your first year Torts book. Or get out your Black's Dictionary. Its called Additur and Remittur . Our Civil justice system was structured to allow mainly unfettered jury determinations for a reason. But there already are safeguards to a runaway verdict. Case in point? The Coffee case. Her final recovery was $480,000. Now, a horribly injured citizen has a mandatory cap on damages. Please tell me why the taxpayers should pay for a lifetime of care and medical for the brain damaged twin, when the Dr. and Hospital is at fault? Why should we pay lifetime medical care (5 Million plus) out of our pocket instead of the Physician who caused this mess? Karl Rove says yes. Why? Bigger corporate profits. What do you say?

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

Excellent.

This is the crux of my argument, too.

Cap jury awards so that the taxpayer ends up paying instead of the person who committed the wrong? That protects no one but big business. And in the case of the medical industry, it's not the doctor being protected, it's the insurance companies.

[–] daenku32 13 years ago

Tort-reform people actually have arguments? No they don't. They whine about the Coffee lady and say no business should have million dollar judgments against them. That's the extent of it.

[–] lingt69 13 years ago

I think you successfully regurgitated a few terms you heard in law school, but your understanding of those concepts and your overall post are brutal. Let's look at your first three paragraphs.

First paragraph: Yes, this film is anti-tort reform propaganda. So? Are the makers of this film not allowed to argue their side? Do you similarly complain when you see pro-tort reform propaganda? You claim that the film does not address the points made by the other side, yet it starts right off by debunking the common misconceptions of one lawsuit cited by tort reformists as the preeminent example of frivolousness. And your de-legitimization argument... it would hold some weight if this movie claimed to be the most comprehensive and thorough attack on tort reform ever. But I didn't see that anywhere. Instead, it tells interesting stories and draws people into an issue they may have never really cared about before, and feeds these people a one-sided argument. I'd say that's actually a pretty effective way of doing things!

Your second paragraph is a generally tolerable position, though I really don't get what issue you're trying to address there. Doesn't seem to be a point of controversy raised in the film... just seems like you just wanted to shock the world with your understanding of stare decisis. Res ipsa loquitur!

So the third paragraph is extremely confused... maybe you haven't taken con law yet. You also may have failed federal procedure. Let me help you out: the argument is that caps are unconstitutional because they abridge the individual's right to jury for matters over 20 bucks--an established fundamental right and therefore subject to strict scrutiny under a substantive due process challenge. But then you talk about Erie and interstate commerce... dude, the debate isn't about federal jurisdiction. It's about whether tort reform should happen at all. C'mon, man!

Summary of my post: You pretend to be giving an objective viewpoint from a person "in the know". You fail.

[–] YakPro 13 years ago

Well reasoned Lingt
Obviously the original poster is a law student (if actually a student) at that religious law school that was stocking the Justice Department with unqualified hacks in the Bush years...

[–] rlippman-2 13 years ago

Or a Troll for the Insurance Industry perhaps? From what I have seen, this movie really has them running scared and the attack machine is in full swing. Makes you think maybe they don't want people seeing this movie and drawing their own conclusions...

[–] relytj321 9 years ago

Politicians and big business do not want an informed electorate.

[–] lindbergh25 12 years ago

"It just gave sob story after sob story."
Brother!!! Now THERE'S a lawyer talking alright...he/she doesn't have an actual HEART beating in the chest - it's an early Jarvik prototype hooked up to a 9 volt battery. Those case examples profiled some real human suffering - how callous and dismissive can you get?!!

[–] modman-2 11 years ago

Actually, I would agree with him if this movie really just gave "sob story after sob story"
I don't believe appeals to emotion over logic often make for decent arguments.

For example, I remember being in high school when the Coffee case hit the news. I would be the first to admit that I pictured some younger woman in a soccer-mom van driving with one hand on the wheel who spilled coffee on herself and got millions. Yeah, thanks a million for exposing my bias to myself Hot Coffee

Now, lets say it was entirely her fault but she had the same injuries. Is her story any less sad? Do you not feel sorry for her "sob story?" I would.

But with every "sob story" presented in this film, they absolutely covered the logistics and legal issues associated with the law suits. While I felt for each of the people in this film, I for one was far more moved by the issues discussed in the film. There are millions of people burned, mentally and physically disabled and otherwise handicapped through no one else's fault. Those stories are all sad. What's shocking is the theme presented in this film.

For the record, I am absolutely not a leftist or a "liberal." I consider myself quite conservative and extremely pro-business. However I don't believe this is a Republican/Democrat thing. This is a constitutional issue. We have given up far too many of our litigious rights.

The McDonald's case really is the perfect case for their point: the judge lowered the amount to less than half a million dollars. Typically your attorney and court costs are going to be about a third to one half of what you're awarded. So there you go. Does there need to be a mandatory cap to prevent run-away juries? I don't think so, but the McDonald's case certainly isn't a good example if you disagree.

[–] Malchik81 11 years ago

Right, because most lawyers emphasize the good points of the people they're arguing against...clearly you're a law student and not a phd student.

"You de-legitimize your own position when one fails to address the valid points presented by the other side."