maybe the song?
Anything to get the point across.
Showing posts with label McDonald's coffee case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McDonald's coffee case. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
The Hot Coffee Case Comic Book
The Liebeck v. McDonald's lawsuit is now drawn up as a comic book. We can lecture about it. We can show the movie. We can show any of a number of videos. Now, see the comic book. Next,
maybe the song?
Anything to get the point across.
maybe the song?
Anything to get the point across.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Monday, October 28, 2013
Guest Blogger - Paula O'Callaghan: Stella Liebeck Scalded First by Coffee, Then by The Media
Paula O'Callaghan from the University of Maryland University College submits the following resource for use in class.
With the 20th anniversary of the verdict in Liebeck v. McDonald's approaching next year, Retro Report finally does the case justice, citing the relevant facts, evidence and discussing the settlement outcome. What is particularly noteworthy about this twelve minute documentary, provided today on the front page of The New York Times website, is the depth of the research and the interviews with some of the actual participants in the case, such as the attorneys for both parties. This is a great resource for debunking many of the myths that still surround this case.
Retro Report (Producer). (2013, October, 21). Scaled by coffee, then news media [Video file]. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/1fPUfhK
Click on the image below to go to the NY Times video site.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Guest Blogger- Paula O'Callaghan: Colbert Showcases "Hot Coffee"
Paula O'Callaghan from University of Maryland University College submits the following resource for use in class.
That's a good one, isn't it? Incidentally, this was sent to me by a student after I had covered the Liebeck case in class. Hope you find it useful.
Editor's note. The documentary, "Hot Coffee" is available on DVD beginning today, Nov. 1, 2011.
To access the video clip, click on the image below:
Here's a possible classroom resource - it's Susan Saladoff from the Colbert Report on the Liebeck case and tort reform.
Saladoff is very good as you'd expect, but my favorite part is Colbert's point that if we believe in "jury of our peers" then why isn't McDonald's, being a corporate person, entitled to a jury composed of Burger King, Jack--in-the-Box, and it's corporate peers?!
Editor's note. The documentary, "Hot Coffee" is available on DVD beginning today, Nov. 1, 2011.
To access the video clip, click on the image below:
Monday, August 29, 2011
Hot Coffee Case Reenacted
According to the YouTube description, the video below was prepared by students in Robert Emerson's BLAW class at the University of Florida. It is billed as a "re-enactment" of the McDonald's coffee case. That term may be a bit generous, but it is certainly informative and thought provoking. Kudos to Bob and his students for their creativity and contributions to legal studies education.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Reflection at Semester's End
With the end of the Spring semester, posting will be intermittent through the summer. As our thoughts and attention turn back to course and lecture preparation later in August, regular daily posting will resume.
One prominent occurence at the end of this semester prompts this reflection and resolve for change next semester. Last year at the annual ALSB conference, a recurring theme was, "I'm teaching, but are they leearning?" I had the experience of considering that question deeply last week in grading finals in my Legal Environment class. Just two weeks before, I taught a lecture that serves as the wrap-up for the unit on civil liability. Featured is a presentation of purported lawsuit abuse and issues of tort reform. The McDonald's Coffee case is featured prominently as the cornerstone for the presentation. I know from student comments on earlier assignments that many of them believe that the plaintiff received nearly $3M from McDonald's. This lecture, as the capstone of the civil liability unit, gives me the opportunity to talk about the difference between the jury's verdict and the court's judgment, how appeals of trials can affect ultimate compensation and other important issues. All, once again, using the McDonald's Coffee case as an example. There is an assigned reading from Law 101- a chapter entitled "Auto Accidents, Scalding Coffee and Medical Malpractice." And also assigned is a short webpage, "The Actual Facts of the McDonald's Coffee case" from the 'Lectric Law Library. A Power Point presentation of the lecture is posted on our Blackboard site.
Because attendance was particularly poor (about 55%) in those sections on that day, I made a point to specifically ask a final exam question on the McDonald's Coffee case. Any student who paid any attention in that lecture or read either of the assigned readings would have learned in class that the plaintiff's recovery was actually less than 25% of the nearly $3M figure that was reported and would easily have answered the question correctly. To my dismay, only 27 of 129 students (23%) chose the correct answer. And, to make matters worse, a large percentage of students also believed in the veracity of other ridiculous litigation fables (a woman received millions from a microwave manufacturer after putting her poodle in the microwave oven to dry off after a bath; a man received millions of dollars from the crash of his Winnebago after putting the vehicle on cruise control and going in the back to make a cup of coffee.) All this, despite having been assigned a website reading specifically debunking this folklore and following specific mention of their falsity during the lecture.
So, here I am left with nearly 100 students who came out of my class, convinced of the veracity of absolute gibberish about the law - and they believe that they learned this nonsense in my class. Read, here, the frustration expressed by a young PhD student (who happens to be my daughter) experiencing the same problem in another discipline. Despite my best efforts, my most provocative presentations, my most pointed and thorough coverage of the material, these student remain not merely uneducated, but thoroughly mis-educated with respect to an important concept that (in my opinion) is necessary to be considered an educated person.
These myths, this folklore, these popular beliefs apparently transcend common sense and are far more durable than I had ever imagined. Whether they come from popular culture or social networking sites or media misrepresentation, they endure even in the face of formal educational efforts. I am now back to the drawing board, rethinking and redesigning my approach for the Fall - determined not to lose to the forces of evil mis-education, and far wiser about my students' reading and study habits and learning methods. Perhaps release of the "Hot Coffee" documentary in the Fall will help.
If you have any suggestions to share, please post it in the comments. We can all hopefully learn from each other.
Fox news reports of Stella Liebeck that "a jury awarded her $2.7M," but not that the court's judgment was only $640,000:
One prominent occurence at the end of this semester prompts this reflection and resolve for change next semester. Last year at the annual ALSB conference, a recurring theme was, "I'm teaching, but are they leearning?" I had the experience of considering that question deeply last week in grading finals in my Legal Environment class. Just two weeks before, I taught a lecture that serves as the wrap-up for the unit on civil liability. Featured is a presentation of purported lawsuit abuse and issues of tort reform. The McDonald's Coffee case is featured prominently as the cornerstone for the presentation. I know from student comments on earlier assignments that many of them believe that the plaintiff received nearly $3M from McDonald's. This lecture, as the capstone of the civil liability unit, gives me the opportunity to talk about the difference between the jury's verdict and the court's judgment, how appeals of trials can affect ultimate compensation and other important issues. All, once again, using the McDonald's Coffee case as an example. There is an assigned reading from Law 101- a chapter entitled "Auto Accidents, Scalding Coffee and Medical Malpractice." And also assigned is a short webpage, "The Actual Facts of the McDonald's Coffee case" from the 'Lectric Law Library. A Power Point presentation of the lecture is posted on our Blackboard site.
Because attendance was particularly poor (about 55%) in those sections on that day, I made a point to specifically ask a final exam question on the McDonald's Coffee case. Any student who paid any attention in that lecture or read either of the assigned readings would have learned in class that the plaintiff's recovery was actually less than 25% of the nearly $3M figure that was reported and would easily have answered the question correctly. To my dismay, only 27 of 129 students (23%) chose the correct answer. And, to make matters worse, a large percentage of students also believed in the veracity of other ridiculous litigation fables (a woman received millions from a microwave manufacturer after putting her poodle in the microwave oven to dry off after a bath; a man received millions of dollars from the crash of his Winnebago after putting the vehicle on cruise control and going in the back to make a cup of coffee.) All this, despite having been assigned a website reading specifically debunking this folklore and following specific mention of their falsity during the lecture.
So, here I am left with nearly 100 students who came out of my class, convinced of the veracity of absolute gibberish about the law - and they believe that they learned this nonsense in my class. Read, here, the frustration expressed by a young PhD student (who happens to be my daughter) experiencing the same problem in another discipline. Despite my best efforts, my most provocative presentations, my most pointed and thorough coverage of the material, these student remain not merely uneducated, but thoroughly mis-educated with respect to an important concept that (in my opinion) is necessary to be considered an educated person.
These myths, this folklore, these popular beliefs apparently transcend common sense and are far more durable than I had ever imagined. Whether they come from popular culture or social networking sites or media misrepresentation, they endure even in the face of formal educational efforts. I am now back to the drawing board, rethinking and redesigning my approach for the Fall - determined not to lose to the forces of evil mis-education, and far wiser about my students' reading and study habits and learning methods. Perhaps release of the "Hot Coffee" documentary in the Fall will help.
If you have any suggestions to share, please post it in the comments. We can all hopefully learn from each other.
Fox news reports of Stella Liebeck that "a jury awarded her $2.7M," but not that the court's judgment was only $640,000:
Friday, April 15, 2011
Media Gets Another Multi-Million Dollar Verdict Story Wrong
Recently an article appeared in the Hartford Courant with the following headline: "Hartford Jury Awards Injured State Trooper $16.8 Million." To me, this article is notable for what is missing - the crucial end of the story. From the headline and the story, the average reader will assume that this state trooper is about to receive millions of dollars in compensation. Only a reader who is properly educated about how the system works will understand that the conclusion of this story should read: "As a result, the state trooper is not likely to receive any compensation, despite the jury's verdict."
After long struggling to determine if the mainstream media's failure to tell the whole story in personal injury cases was the result of lack of experience, reporters hamstrung by editorial constraints, or the pursuance of an agenda, I have given up trying to figure it out. Instead, my crusade has been to properly educate students about how the system works. And in this regard, Business Law texts are not very helpful. Very few have any information on insurance and those that do, do not address the role that insurance coverage and insurance companies play in the real-life aspects of a civil liability claim. We do our students a disservice if we teach them "Torts" and "Judicial Procedure" without addressing the nitty grittty issues that play out behind the scenes. Most of my students come into class believing that Stella Liebeck (the McDonald's Coffee Case plaintiff) received millions of dollars. The media reporting of the amount of the verdict rarely mentioned the reduced judgment award or the ultimate settlement.
The article referenced here reports a jury verdict in a lawsuit brought by a Connecticut state trooper who, two years prior, was injured while on the job after being struck by a drunk driver. The officer suffered severe injuries to both knees and back injuries. He was subsequently required to take a disability retirement. The article reported that medical bills were nearly $100,000. A dram shop action was brought against the bar that served the driver and the driver was sued, personally.
The article in this case accurately reports that the verdict against the bar will likely be reduced to the dram shop statutory limit of $250,000. However, it does not mention that after attorney's fees and pay back of worker's compensation benefits, there is likely nothing left for the plaintiff. The impressive $12.6M award against the drunk driver is likely uncollectable. The article reported that the driver, "did not appear to defend himself in the trial." It takes an understanding of the civil justice system well beyond that possessed by the typical undergraduate to understand that since no one represented the driver in the case, there is apparently no insurance coverage available to pay any portion of the judgment.
Kudos should be given to alternative media such as the Hartford Advocate. In reporting a $125,000 wrongful death settlement with the City of Hartford, the Advocate went the extra yard and reported that after attorneys' fees, expenses of litigation, and re-payment of a state welfare lien, the family will recieve a little less than $20,000.
Post update 4/24/11: Kudos should also go to Hartford Courant reporter David Owens for a 4/23/11 story about a civil suit following a horrendous accident. The story mentions the existence of insurance coverage in a way that introduces the public to insurance considerations as a integral part of a lawsuit.
The video below shows Fox News looking at "whacky warning labels" and reporting that a jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.7M without mentioning that the judgment was actually for less than 30% of that amount.
After long struggling to determine if the mainstream media's failure to tell the whole story in personal injury cases was the result of lack of experience, reporters hamstrung by editorial constraints, or the pursuance of an agenda, I have given up trying to figure it out. Instead, my crusade has been to properly educate students about how the system works. And in this regard, Business Law texts are not very helpful. Very few have any information on insurance and those that do, do not address the role that insurance coverage and insurance companies play in the real-life aspects of a civil liability claim. We do our students a disservice if we teach them "Torts" and "Judicial Procedure" without addressing the nitty grittty issues that play out behind the scenes. Most of my students come into class believing that Stella Liebeck (the McDonald's Coffee Case plaintiff) received millions of dollars. The media reporting of the amount of the verdict rarely mentioned the reduced judgment award or the ultimate settlement.
The article referenced here reports a jury verdict in a lawsuit brought by a Connecticut state trooper who, two years prior, was injured while on the job after being struck by a drunk driver. The officer suffered severe injuries to both knees and back injuries. He was subsequently required to take a disability retirement. The article reported that medical bills were nearly $100,000. A dram shop action was brought against the bar that served the driver and the driver was sued, personally.
The article in this case accurately reports that the verdict against the bar will likely be reduced to the dram shop statutory limit of $250,000. However, it does not mention that after attorney's fees and pay back of worker's compensation benefits, there is likely nothing left for the plaintiff. The impressive $12.6M award against the drunk driver is likely uncollectable. The article reported that the driver, "did not appear to defend himself in the trial." It takes an understanding of the civil justice system well beyond that possessed by the typical undergraduate to understand that since no one represented the driver in the case, there is apparently no insurance coverage available to pay any portion of the judgment.
Kudos should be given to alternative media such as the Hartford Advocate. In reporting a $125,000 wrongful death settlement with the City of Hartford, the Advocate went the extra yard and reported that after attorneys' fees, expenses of litigation, and re-payment of a state welfare lien, the family will recieve a little less than $20,000.
Post update 4/24/11: Kudos should also go to Hartford Courant reporter David Owens for a 4/23/11 story about a civil suit following a horrendous accident. The story mentions the existence of insurance coverage in a way that introduces the public to insurance considerations as a integral part of a lawsuit.
The video below shows Fox News looking at "whacky warning labels" and reporting that a jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.7M without mentioning that the judgment was actually for less than 30% of that amount.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
"Hot Coffee" Documentary
The documentary "Hot Coffee" has recently been shown at the Sundance film festival. Below is a video of the filmaker, Susan Saladoff, a former practicing trial lawyer. Her perspective is that corporate media campaigns have perpetrated falsehoods about the McDonald's coffee case and others in order to support tort reform. The media campaigns have been successful in mis-educating the public. This movie represents her attempt to set the record straight.
Below are several interviews and reports from Democracy Now:
Below are several interviews and reports from Democracy Now:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)