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.

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.

Caps on Damages and Mandatory Arbitration

The video below shows former Alabama Supreme Court  Chief Justice Sonny Hornsby briefly outlining two issues that are explored in more detail in the movie Hot Coffee; Caps on Damages and Mandatory Arbitration. It is nice and short and might make a nice discussion starter in class.

"Frivolous" Lawsuit Stories Exposed by Cracked.com

The website Cracked.com reports on 6 Famous "Frivolous Lawsuit" Stories That Are Total BS. Undergraduate students are very familiar with the Cracked website which provides a healthy dose of humor and sarcasm to the youger generation.  Warning! Cracked does not hesitate to express its ideas in language that you would otherwise try to avoid in class. So, I wouldn't put this up on the projector, but I might assign it on a syllabus.

A sampling of other Cracked articles of interest:
5 Awesomely Sarcastic Supreme Court Decisions
7 Bullshit Police Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
The 5 Most Wildy Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History
7 Brilliant Movie Lawyers (Who Suck at Their Job)
6 Judges Who Went Completely Insane on The Bench

Guest Blogger - Henry Lowenstein: Proximate Cause or Cable Remote?

Henry Lowenstein from Coastal Carolina University shares the following video resource:

A colleague of mine (Professor Mark Mitchell, Marketing) passed on some of the new TV ads being run by DirectTV to encourage consumers to switch from cable TV to their direct service.  They are hilarious.  The one below had me thinking on the issue of "proximate cause" when we teach about torts in our legal environment classrooms.  Who really is responsible for injury?  Who really should pay?  What are the limits of the logic?  Is the cell phone company responsible for the distracted driving that leads to an accident or is it the maker of the device itself, or the road, or the car company who didn't warn not to look at the GPS screen while driving?  The road to netting potential tortfeasors could be endless and only the courts, juries and legislators put some limitations on it.  Common sense and personal responsibility often get lost in the legal "static." 

The big complaint about the U.S. legal system and raised in debates on tort reform is the expansion of tort theories, by plaintiff attorneys seeking new ways of making cases and cashing-in for "victims" and themselves.  So the DirectTV might be a funny way to approach the topic.   Is the cable tv company the proximate cause of this individual's "assault."  Does he have a cause of action against his cable company for various forms of tort liability and compensation?

Editor's Comment: Maybe this guy could sue Direct TV for not speedily convincing him to switch from cable?

Bad Lawyer Ads #3

This is final exam week at UConn so, normally, I would post something on the lighter side. I went  looking for humorous lawyer ads to post and found the video below, Unfortunately, this ad, ostensibly intended to be clever turned out to be disturbing.

How can you be a lawyer who purports to make a living advancing the rights of innocent injury victims yet embrace the stereotype of "bullying" insurance companies into unfairly paying money to your clients after a "shakedown"?  Where is our credibility, as a profession, in advocating for a fair civil justice system when we sink to pandering for business at the expense of principles? An ad like this emboldens the cause of "tort deformers," and cheapens the search for justice.

I hesitated to post the ad here for fear that I would be giving it unwarranted exposure. But toward the greater interest of education, we all need to know what is happening out there and to what forces of "mis-education" our students may be exposed.

See also: Bad Lawyer Ads #1; Bad Lawyer Ads #2

"Frivolous" Lawsuits Are Good For America

The national news media reported last week on a lawsuit filed by a kidnapper against his victims claiming that they breached an oral contract to hide him from police. (A tip of the hat to ALSB member Marsha Hass for sharing the report). Predictably, bloggers and commentators have added this example to their rhetoric of a "justice system out of control" and "costing taxpayers money" and etc.

In this post, I advocate that this story, rather than supporting the notion of an out of control civil justice system,  is best understood as an example of a legal system working exactly as it should for the greater benefit of society.

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.

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?! 

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:

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.

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:

"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:

Mr. Fancy Pants: Need For Tort Reform?

This video, produced by the Personal Inury Board, has everything you could want to kick off a serious discussion: a frivolous lawsuit over lost pants, lobbying intrigue, McDonald's coffee suit myths and facts, stand up comedy clips, tort refom ads, allegations, substantiations, and on and on. Warning! Assigning this video might cause your students to turn on their brains. On a serious note, this video could be a great assignment to anchor an online discussion thread on a Blackboard or Course Tools program.