Review of Hot Coffee (2011) by Edith N — 27 Nov 2011

The Frivolous Lawsuits Which Aren't.

Okay, Pants Lawyer was totally frivolous. And, it's worth noting, he lost. And lost his appeal. And had the appeal to his appeal turned down. A lot of lawsuits never make it to court in the first place. Somehow, that part never quite makes it into the commercials about how we have to reform the system. Even just a few weeks ago, literally years after the famous McDonald's case--and years after the plaintiff died--I read a Facebook post from a friend about how it's a symbol of everything wrong with America. And when I pointed out to her that practically everything she said about it was wrong, I was told that I was missing the point. Only the more I've learned about that sort of example, the more I learn that the real thing wrong with America on this one is that we don't do our own research, and we are inclined to think in sound bites. And there's only room in our minds for a single version of anything.

The documentary starts with the infamous case [i]Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants[/i], the eponymous hot coffee case. We go over what "everyone knows" about the case, and then we explore how what we know is wrong. Mrs. Liebeck wasn't driving; the car wasn't in motion at all. While coffee properly brewed requires water between about 195 and 205 degrees F, McDonald's was storing its coffee at temperatures not much below that, and they had received over 700 complaints about burns sustained from the coffee. Mrs. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns over six percent of her body and second-degree burns over sixteen percent. But that's not how you heard about it. And in general, the film goes on to show how you are intentionally being given a perception of how lawsuits work which benefits Big Business at the expense of the average person.

While I was horrified by the pictures of Mrs. Liebeck's burns--and skin grafts--and, yes, they show pictures, and it's far, far worse than you imagined--the person in the film I felt most sorry for was Connor Gourley. When his mother was pregnant, her doctor failed to notice that Connor and his twin, Colin, shared a placenta. Due to malpractice on the doctor's part, Colin suffered severe brain damage. It turns out that Nebraska, where the Gourleys live, has a cap on how much can be awarded in damages in a lawsuit, and it is far, far less than Colin Gourley will require over the course of his life to be treated for what was a completely preventable problem. However, what I couldn't help thinking was that I hoped Connor was getting a ton of therapy. After all, while Colin's problems would have been prevented had his mother's doctor done an ultrasound when she first reported problems--when she first turned out to be carrying twins!--and while they could have been prevented even then had surgery been carried out promptly, Connor will live his life knowing that the issue started when he was getting Colin's share of nourishment and oxygen in the womb. So while the doctor could have stopped it, it can be argued that Connor started it, and he has to be aware of that.

Now, the case of Jamie Leigh Jones is a bit more controversial; a jury found that she was not, in fact, raped, and that the sex she had with a coworker was consensual. That being said, she still had the Constitutional right to a jury trial to determine that, not secret and binding arbitration run by her employer. Especially if her employer was being paid by the US government for its work. Jones maintains that the verdict was based on the fact that her life was put under intensive scrutiny and those of the people whom she was accusing were not. I can't speak to that; I don't know enough about the case. But if her employer had its way, no one would know any details about the case, and that's contrary to the system set up by the Constitution. It's true that the Constitution is a little vague on the place of the Judiciary, unto not actually establishing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but your right to a trial by your peers is not vague.

Actually, this is a thing I think about when it comes to "corporate personhood." (Which I support a Constitutional amendment against.) Can, say, Viacom be called for jury duty? I mean, if they're people, they have all the same responsibilities toward society that people do, right? Though that does bring up the unsettling thought that a jury of Stella Liebeck's peers might also have included Starbucks. Which itself has issues about how hot coffee ought to be. Though probably they would have been eliminated during [i]voir dire[/i] due to conflict of interest. Yes, I'm overthinking it, but I think the Supreme Court was underthinking it when they issued that ruling, so there we are. Anyway, people are limited in how much they're allowed to give to election campaigns, right? If having a loan secured by a friend who was also a lawyer got Oliver Diaz indicted for bribery, how many people has the US Chamber of Commerce bribed?