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.

More "Frivolous Lawsuit" Mythbusting

See related post, here.

Spotlight on Frivolous Lawsuits

I have previously expressed the opinion in this blog that frivolous lawsuits are good for America. Others may have different opinions. In recognizing that frivolous lawsuits exist, I am by no means buying into the industry-fueled tort reform propaganda that the nation is somehow awash with frivolous lawsuits that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. But, I am recognizing reality.  These lawsuits exist.  They are usually filed pro se.  They are usually filed by people with apparent mental illness. They are summarily dismissed from the court system at the earliest possible review by a judge. Yet, the media reports on these lawsuits as if they were representative of the state of the civil justice system and attract the attention of judicial resources in the same degree as legitimate claims. Certainly the media can claim to be "just reporting the facts." But misrepresentation by omission is just as harmful to legal legitimacy as intentional falsehoods. The experience of the reporting on the McDonald's Coffee Case should have taught us something as a society. It takes an educated and  knowledgeable reader to draw the proper conclusions from the facts reported.

UConn is promoting "Business Literacy" as a point of emphasis in our courses.  I think one of the principal contributions that a Legal Environment course can make toward that end is to produce students who can read through sensational reporting of civil justice issues to discover the real impact of what is reported.

See similar posts, here and here.

So, that brings us to the frivolous lawsuit du jour.  The Oregonian reports:

A 26-year-old Portland pimp has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike, claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.

Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon. He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a john who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardy's prostitute in June 2012.

Pro Se?

In his three-page complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that the shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death.

Mental Illness?

A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again. And Clardy disagreed so loudly -- making such a scene -- that he was removed from the courtroom.

Costing taxpayers millions of dollars?

In the coming days, the suit will be served to Nike, which will then have an opportunity to respond.

In this case, all the facts are there.  But our students need to able to understand the legal and social implications of the facts.

On the other hand, the 1:30 second news report below from Bloomberg 8 fails to include the "pro se" fact or the likely mental illness. It also mis-characterizes the civil suit as a defense in his criminal case.

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.

Speed Limits, Part Deux; Or Bad Media Coverage, Part Un Mille (One Thousand)

In an earlier post, I discussed Speed Limits as an example of Legal Realist thinking.  If the "written law" says the speed limit is 65, but no one gets a ticket until they drive faster than 75, then a Legal Realist thinker may well be justified in concluding that the law ("law in action") limits speed at 75, not 65. But, I was surprised to see this "speed buffer zone" practice formally acknowledged in public.

The Department of Transportation for the State of Connecticut provided information for an article in the Hartford Courant (DOT Task Force to Drivers: Don't Endanger Our Lives) that was supposed to encourage people to slow down when approaching highway work zones. The speed limits on many Connecticut highways is 55, and in other sections, it is 65.  Connecticut law has long allowed for fines to be doubled for speeding violations in marked work zones. But this statement caught me by surprise:

Effective Oct. 1, Connecticut law will get tougher. Motorists caught speeding through a marked work zone at 75 mph or faster -- or any trucker or other commercial driver who zooms through at 65 or more – will be ticketed. Those who are convicted will be required to attend an in-person retraining class in addition.

What? No tickets until speed 75?  This is the new law to crack down on speeding in work zones?  Thankfully, this is just another instance of bad writing. The law regarding ticketing for exceeding the speed limit has not changed.  It is still an infraction, subject to ticketing, for exceeding the posted speed limit by even one mile per hour (whether that is what happens in practice is another story). The "new" part is the driver re-training requirement.

I was not the only one to pick up on the misinformation.  A letter to the editor printed in the Courant expressed the same surprise.  The Courant printed the letter - but no clarifying explanation.  Once again, the "law in action" may be less about how the law is enforced than about the public perception of how the law is enforced.  That perception, unfortunately, is shaped by media reporting on lawmakers - not on the the law-makers, themselves

Which Law Do You Prefer, Obamacare or The Affordable Care Act?

In a recent post, I suggested that the media's portrayal of law is perhaps more important to the fostering or hindering of legal legitimacy than the law itself. I also re-iterated the AACSB requirement that students understand:

• Economic, political, regulatory, legal, technological, and social contexts of organizations in a global society

Here is an exercise in understanding political, legal  and social contexts.  The staff of the Jimmy Kimmel show interviewed people on the street asking them about their support for "Obamacare" versus "The Affordable Care Act."  Of course, they are the same law. But removing the "Obamacare" label, makes the law more palatable.  Although not a scientific study, this exercise supports the notion that the way the law is presented in society, whether through the media or the political system or both, affects the public's perception of the law. 

Consider the answer to the question: "Do you believe that Obamacare will lead to gun prohibition?"

Click on the image below to see the video from a different source:

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.