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.

Sheldon Cooper Seeks Circumvention of the Parol Evidence Rule

On the popular CBS sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, neurotic physicist Dr. Sheldon Cooper negotiates a "relationship agreement" with his girlfriend, neurobiologist Amy Farrah Fowler.  However, when Amy seeks to enforce one of its unambiguous provisions, Sheldon claims the "intent" of the clause was to achieve a result contrary to the plain meaning.

See the scene, below:

Bad Lawyer Ads (Just Kidding)

It's the end of the semester.  Usually I post some of the latest "Bad Lawyer Ads" for the duration.  This year, the post is just for fun from the fictional Saul Goodman.  Have a great summer.  See you in the Fall.

Law Music Video: Citizens United

From Roy Zimmerman, a true satirist and social commentator:

Perception of American Law

The video below was submitted by Konrad Lee at Utah State University. In case you missed it about 30 years ago, this scenario builds on the story, long since discredited, that a woman whose precious family pet died when she attempted to dry it off in a microwave oven prosecuted a successful lawsuit against the microwave manufacturer. I've decided to open class with this one today.

Sadly, this is an expression of how some perceive American Justice.

A Trial's Real Impact

In an earlier post, we compared Hollywood's dramatic portrayals of court cases with the relatively boring and tedious progression of a real trial.  Perhaps, that post overlooks the tremendous emotional impact of cases on the lives of participants.

below is a video compilation of Hollywood portrayals of trials. Pay attention, in particular, to the courtroom reactions as a verdict is announced. Then view the video of a rel verdict announcement. No movie can effectively portray that.






And then there is this tragic scene:

Legally Blonde, The Musical

Harvard Professor Callahan educates his students: exploit your superior resources to take advantage of the weak, scruples are a flaw, and emotions make you weak.  The successful lawyer smells the blood in the water.

"Is it unfair, Oh, wait! I don't care"

"You're nothing until the thrill of the kill becomes your only law."

Is such a public perception of lawyers justified?

Appropriately Named Accused Criminal II

In "Appropriately Named (Accused) Criminal I", we gave a link to a video detailing the troubles of D'AlCapone AlPacino Morris. Today's post allows you to consider the plight of Alkapone Cruz-Balles - charged with car jacking in Hawaii.

In all fairness, it should be mentioned that there is a rap/hip hop artist who goes by the name Al Kapone (stage name). And it is possible that the person responsible for choosing a name for Mr. Cruz-Balles may know only that cultural reference and not be aware of the exploits of famous gangster Al Capone. Either way, consider the intersections of popular culture and law.

Alkapone Cruz-Balles:


Al Capone famous Chicago gangster:

Law Music Video: The Loving Kind

This week's law music video post is The Loving Kind by Nanci Griffith.  See related posts here and here.

Nanci Griffith writes, "They changed the hearts of my nation, with their wedding vows." Would this have been true if the Supreme Court had upheld the Virginia Law? In other words, was it their wedding that fostered change or was it the court's willingness to embrace their wedding that changed the hearts (and minds) of the nation?

The award winning book, The Hollow Hope, argues that the Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education actually set back the cause of integration - that time and education would have brought quicker and more effective integration. Do you agree or disagree?  What, if anything, is the value of a Supreme Court decision on changing the "hearts and minds" of Americans?

More than 50 years after the Loving decision, there is still a durable belief among some that interracial marriage should be illegal. (This poll ascribes that position to 29% of likely Republican voters in Mississippi) Is this the best consensus that we can hope for in a pluralist society?  Do those who disagree with the Court's decision nevertheless acquiesce to it - or do they strive to change it?

What Employers Can Learn About You From Facebook

In a prior post, I have discussed how inappropriate pictures posted on Facebook could support an employee's dismissal. However, a positive Facebook profile may help you get hired in the first place. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology indicates that reveiwing the social media profiles of a prospective employee may allow employers to closely approximate the results of standard personality testing. The study also indicates that information from social networking sites may be a better predictor of job success than IQ tests.   A similar study by University of Maryland Assistant Professor Jennifer Golbeck revealed similar results. According to Professor Golbeck:

There’s a lot of research out there that’s of interest to employers and businesses, about what a person’s personality says about their potential for job success and their ability to work in a team, and a lot of companies make people take personality tests. If we can get pretty accurate results just by looking at someone’s social media profile, then you have the potential to apply all those results about what personality implies about a person, without actually having to have them take a test. So there’s some good sides to that, and some potentially creepy sides. I’m not a legal expert, and I don’t know the details of that, but employers are certainly looking at all the social media that’s available about their potential employees, and people really need to keep that in mind.

Of course, the results of the review may not always be beneficial to the applicant. But this study gives us another example of the way that technology and social media stretches traditional notions of privacy.

Click here or on the image below to see a report discussing the value of personality tests in hiring:

"American President" Movie Speech Echoes Supreme Court

The American Rhetoric Website on Movie Speeches offers an opportunity to view President Andrew Shepherd's (Michael Douglas) address to the press from the movie The American President. Shepherd, running for re-election has been attacked by his opponent on "character issues." The widower president had begun dating an environmental lobbyist, Syndney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening), when an old photo of her surfaced. The image captured a college -aged Wade burning an American flag during a protest.

Shephard's impassioned words echo Justice Brennan's decision in Texas v. Johnson (flag burning case):

The best way to preserve the flag’s special role in our lives is not to punish those who feel differently but to persuade them that they are wrong.  We do not honor our flag by punishing those who burn it, because in doing so we diminish the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

I find this clip useful to describe the concept and legal principles surrounding political speech to set the stage for a comparative analysis of commercial speech.

To view the speech from The American President, click here or on the image below:

Do I Really Need That Prescription Drug?

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations require that if prescription drug manufacturers make representations in advertisements about what their products can cure, then they must also make disclosure about the potential side effects of the drug.  This is one way that the regualtory system works to protect the consumer.  Commercials, such as the examples below, make a viewer understandably cautious about their prescription drug intake.





The Celebrex commercial below is an example of the other kind of ad - one that makes no positive claims  and therefore need not disclose potential side effects.



Unfortunately, I was not able to find a video of the more recent Celebrex ads to exhibit the category of "language butcherng ads." The new ads warn that "patients taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk of stomach bleeding and ulcers." Where are those patients taking the elderly?

Featured Movie: The Verdict

TheVerdict is probably my favorite law movie of all time. I am enamored with its ironies and thoughtful inquiries into the civil justice system.

Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a one time promising lawyer, now down on his luck after being victimized by ethically challenged legal employers. He has a case that is sure to get him back on his financial feet - a malpractice case against a hospital run by the powerful Archdiocese of Boston. A young mother is given a general anesthetic during childbirth and aspirates into her mask. The oxygen deprivation leaves her comatose. A settlement is all but assured, until Frank decides that he has an obligation to pursue the case to a verdict to expose the wrongdoers. But is it justice that Frank seeks or his own personal redemption?

In the eyes of many, it is usually the lawyer who wants the settlement money and the client that wants justice. In a beautifully designed reversal of roles Frank's clients, the victim's sister and her husband, are seeking a settlement to set up a perpetual care fund for their loved one before departing to Arizona to pursue work and better health.  In a key scene, Frank, who is initially portrayed as a low life, turns down the substantial settlement offer to pursue "justice."  It is the first time that Frank exhibits any redeeming qualities.  Of course, it is also the moment when he breaches his professional obligation to his clients.

The movie examines issues of disparity of resources in civil litigation, professional ethics, civil settlements, the adversarial system, and the very nature of justice in the civil system.  In a final irony, the only way justice can be acheived in court, is to ignore the law. Galvin's summation is a signal cinematic moment.

The Verdict earned 5 academy award nominations including best picture, best actor (Newman) and best supprting actor (James Mason as insurance counsel Ed Concannon).

The movie is based on the novel of the same name written by Boston attorney Barry Reed.  For legal popular culture buffs, it is interesting to note that Reed is the lawyer who referred to Jan Schlictmann the Woburn, MA leukemia case that was the subject of the book and movie, A Civil Action.

Read Reviews. I have guided viewing questions available to share for educational purposes if you e-mail me at mark.deangelis@uconn.edu.

Other law movies featured in this blog: The Rainmaker; My Cousin Vinny


Watch the trailer:


Watch Galvin's summation at the American Movie Speeches site.

Unrealistic and Realistic Portrayals of Court Proceedings

This blog previously featured a guest post from Eve Brown where she featured clips of court scenes from popular culture that give false impressions about the drama of court proceedings juxtaposed against a clip of a real trial.  Unfortunately, not all of those videos are still available on youtube.  Below I have embedded two new video clips featuring an unrealistic portrayal and a realistic potrayal of courtroom proceedings.

Unrealistic:


Realistic:

The End of Civility...or the End of Civilization?

Below is an ad for the reality TV show, Celebrity Apprentice.  Pardon me for being cynical, but I don't think that the fact that the show will raise money for charity is enough to redeem the cultural damage this show inflicts. How can we teach ethics, when the "cheat to win" culture is so famously celebrated . . . and even justified as "doing good?" Do our student dismiss us as out-of-touch sentimentalists when we promote ethical behavior? What about all the multi-millions of TV viewers who are never even exposed to the suggestion of ethical conduct in business? Are ethics even relevant, anymore?

What a "Good Samaritan Law" is Not

Often, legal education involves busting myths and folklore that has crept into consciousness as "knowledge" through various popular culture mediums. Famously, the last Seinfeld episode saw the protagonists prosecuted for failing to help someone in danger.  The law was referred to as a "Good Samaritan Law."  Judging from the way the local sheriff character drawls out that title, it seems as if the Seinfeld writers believed that they cleverly thought that up on their own. Of course, there are "Good Samaritan Laws" that are statutes designed to address the common law principle that one who seeks to provide assistance to another, has a responsibility to do so with due care or risk liability for negligent rescue. The Good Samaritan statutes, though differing somewhat from state to state, have the principal purpose of insulating the would be rescuer from liability for regular negligence as long as the rescue attempt was undertaken in good faith. Individual state statutes should be consulted for specific requirements.

Because the protection is stautory, would be rescuers must fall within the statutory definition to gain the Good Samaritan protection. In Van Horn v. Watson, the California Supreme Court considered whether a woman who pulled a co-worker from a car wreck was protected by the provisions of the California Good Samaritan statute. The statute protects rescuers who are providing "emergency care." The court determined that the statutory language "emergency care" was more properly read as "emergency medical care." The rescuer in this case pulled the plaintiff from a car wreck fearing a fire. The court determined that act to be outside of the definition of "medical" care and therefore, the defendant could not avail herself of the statutory protection.

Seinfeld and friends committing the crime of "criminal indifference."



A suprisingly uninformative national news media report of the Van Horn v. Watson case from California:

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:

Power Can Make You Go "Bananas!"

Sociological Jurisprudence theorists may debate the role of law as a means of social ordering. Law and Society scholars may debate the nature of the symbiotic relationship between the two. Those discussion may be relevant to considering what happens when the formerly weak and powerless become the law makers.  History gives us too many examples of a new regime forgetting its humbler beginnings and losing its ideological moorings upon achieving power. If the American Tea Party rises to  power will it protest against itself?



Click the picture below to see a clip from the classic 1970's Woody Allen movie, Bananas. This is what happens when the rebels win the revolution.

Law Music Video: The Night The Lights Went Out in Georgia

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is The Night The Lights Went Out in Georgia.  I have included video versions from both Vickie Lawrence and Reeba McIntire. Choose your own favorite!

I admit being a fan of country music's penchant for storytelling and melody.  This story is just so deliciously improbable (her brother is arrested, tried, convicted and executed all before the judge makes it home for dinner). But allegorically, it serves up food for thought.

Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

The CSI Effect

The standard of proof in a criminal case is still "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, jurors who watch CSI TV may be holding prosecutors to an inflated conception of "reasonable doubt." Here is how the CSI effect is described in one media article:

The problem today is that citizen jurors expect to be dazzled when selected and seated for jury duty, waiting to be overwhelmed and over-impressed when the prosecution produces tons of forensic evidence and related scientific whiz-bang devices. When these “toys for boys” are not introduced, it’s like, well, “Where’s the beef?” Enter the CSI Syndrome.

Case in point. In a recent assault case a jury acquitted a man for the brutal stabbing of his girlfriend. The victim had survived the assault and testified against her assailant. She had been found in her own bed, the sheets of which were soaked in blood, but the defendant was found not guilty as the jury felt that the blood-soaked sheets should also have been tested for DNA like they do on TV, and not merely examined and found to simply have the same blood type as the victim. The assailant did go to jail for another crime, but when he was later released, he returned and this time he finished the job, stabbing the same woman to death. Prosecutors are learning that the one question they do not want juries to ask is “Why didn’t they test (fill the blank) like they do on CSI?”

In "Law and Order SVU,"  Olivia can often be found following up on results of the rape kit. In real life, shrunken budgets (it costs about $1,500 dollars per kit) and poor evidentiary support for a likely conviction keep many rape kits from being processed. Media reported estimates of un-processsed rape kits vary from 20,000 to 400,000 nationwide. Is popular culture altering the burden of proof in criminal cases so as to make it unattainable?  Let's hope there are alternatives.

News report on the CSI syndrome:  ("It's costing taxpayers money!" Yeah, and it's also skewing the legal system - but I guess the money angle is sexier than burden of proof issues.)

Defense lawyer argues, "no DNA evidence..."  (Click picture below to go to video) This case has now gone through 4 mistrials due to hung juries.




Rape Kit backlog in L.A.:



Call to Action: