Hot Coffee - A Documentary on Tort Law Reforms
Hot Coffee is a documentary filmed in 2011 that tries to discuss and analyze the effects brought about by reforms on the law of tort in the United States Judicial System. The film is directed by Susan Saladoff, a professional medical malpractice attorney having practiced for at least 26 years. The title is coined from a lawsuit between Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, in which the plaintiff Liebeck spilled hot coffee that she purchased from a McDonald's into her lap severely burning her.
The Liebeck v. McDonald's Case and Its Associations
The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, commonly referred to as “the hot coffee lawsuit,” is generally associated with the rot in the United States judicial system: namely, impractical actions exhibited by self-centered plaintiffs with the hopes of minting money from a lawsuit. According to the hearing, Liebeck, who was the plaintiff, decided to take Mickey D’s to court because she spilled the coffee she bought from the business all over herself and sustained minor burns while driving. She expected to be forewarned about how actually high the temperature of her coffee was and if there was a possibility that it would burn her.
The Truth Behind Liebeck's Coffee Incident
Liebeck somehow managed to convince the judiciary that she did not realize that her coffee would be so hot. Therefore, they decided to rule in her favor and awarded her $2.7 million as compensation. The story cannot be far from the truth and people believe it. Attributing to the widespread fallacy it gained, Hot Coffee explains how corporations were able to promote the evils of tort law reforms unethically.
The truth is that the matters of the situation are somehow different. Stella Liebeck was a customer in a car driven by her grandson. He had pulled over and came to a stop as she put sweetener in her coffee. She put the cup on her knees as removing the lid. While she was lifting the cap, the container tipped over, and its contents spilled on her lap. The coffee was hot to the extent that it caused third-degree burns to her the area between her groins and butt which made her spend a week in a hospital and undergo the plastic operation. She brought legal charges against McDonald’s for the payment of the medication. In the course of the case, Liebeck’s lawyers discovered that there were quite a number of other people who had made complains about the same incident. Hence, showing that McDonald’s was fully informed of the situation that is the drink was too hot that it could easily scorch people. Also, McDonald’s accepted that a human could not consume coffee sold at high temperature.
The Company's Awareness and Ethical Responsibility
The case indicates that the company was very much aware of the potential dangers faced by the consumers. For commercial argumentations, they decided not to divulge the information to their customers. There were limited mitigating measures put in place to protect the public against possible accidents. The manufacturer has insight into a product more than the consumer and, therefore, can see a clearer picture. In this case, McDonald’s was aware that its coffee was at a temperature that was enough to inflict burns and that many people had already been burnt by the drink. Ethically, consumers need warning against the dangers posed by a product. As such, the coffee could have been packaged and sold at safe temperatures.
Works Cited
"Scalds with Hot Coffee." Burns, vol. 4, no. 1, 1977, p. 74.
Liebec vs. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. August 18, 1994).
