Hot Coffee Tort Reform Essay

A Civil Action is about an environmental pollution court case in Woburn, Massachusetts. The case focused on an industrial solvent, trichloroethylene, from a local leather company, which contaminated a local aquifer that eventually had lethal consequences on the inhabitants of the town. After Anne Anderson’s son dies of leukemia, she filed a civil lawsuit along with eight other families against The John J. Riley Tannery by Beatrice Foods and Cryovac Manufacturing W. R. Grace Company because their industrial operations correlated to fatal cases of cancer and leukemia in children as well as other health issues reported among the citizens. Anne implored Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious personal injury specialist, to take the case. When Schlichtmann

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

Leibeck, originally sued to cover her out of pocket cost. Mc Donald’s however only offered $800 when her medical bills exceeded $10,000 which Medicaid did not cover. In using the media to mock and distort this case the American Tort Reform Association was able to gain sympathy for changing the way in which civil suits where resolved.

One approach to minimize large amounts of tort claims for medical malpractice is to put a cap on non-economical awards. Tort reform is the response; a tort is a civil lawsuit for damages over private wrongs other than breach of contract. According to Lau and Johnson (2014), a tort can be categorized into three categories: intentional tort, when tortfeasor acted with intent, negligence, if the tortfeasor did not act intentionally, but failed to act as a reasonable person, and lastly, strict liability, if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities, which caused injury or death due to it. The massive medical malpractice cases across the nation have made defending frivolous lawsuits is a national problem; ultimately, the general public

There has been over three decades of debate over a reform that affects everything from insurance and health care premiums to the prices of goods and services. The Tort law gives civilians the right to put liability on a company and sue for a multitude of different things if something goes wrong. A main issue of the tort reform is noneconomic damages. Noneconomic damages are awards granted for “pain and suffering.” A solution to this ongoing problem is to set a cap, or ceiling, on the amount of compensation one can receive for his or her “pain and suffering.” An issue with setting caps is that they are argued against as “unconstitutional” and “violates the right to trial by jury” (Hudson) stated in the sixth

Tort reform, being one of those platforms, is proposed as one solution to the rapidly increasing health care cost in the United States. Careful reform of medical malpractice laws can lower administrative costs and health spending. This will also lead to improved patient safety and steer physicians away from the costly practice of defensive medicine.

In the United States justice system, a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be traced back to the initial trespass of property or person, but it was not until the 18th century that the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). In recent years, tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in tort costs, insurance liability costs, and the number of frivolous lawsuits made. This scrutiny has lead to the creation of tort reform. Tort reform is a movement to reshape the way consumers can access the courts by restricting their right to sue and

In 2005, the estimated cost of the tort system in the United States was approximately 260.8 billion dollars. Broken down, every U.S. citizen spends approximately 880 dollars annually on “litigation taxes” which fund United States tort cases (Balik, Carl). Understanding these numbers, it is absurd to think that a family of 6 spends approximately $5,280 each year on frivolous cases in the nation’s judicial system. With each U.S. citizen paying roughly $1,000 on cases of tort, it is obvious that the system is being abused. Caps in the tort system limit the amount of money a jury can award a victim. These need to be put in place in order to prevent further damage to the nation’s economy and further abuse to the county’s legal system.

Plainly said, Tort Reform is caps on damages. Tort reform is not just one single idea or law, but mostly it's a group of ideas and laws which are designed to change the way our civil justice system works. After careful examination of several sites and blogs, it is obvious that Tort Reform is extremely controversial. Several articles aimed at providing a neutral explanation of what individual tort reform measures are, and the effect they will have on the court system and on citizens, if we are not careful when we vote for these types of policy changes. (Admin,

Starbucks, the coffee empire based out of Seattle, is being accused of filling their beverages 1/4 an inch from the top of the cup leaving what customers are saying, ample space to add more coffee. According to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Starbucks beverages were tested at different locations with different kinds of beverages where this 1/4 inch space was found in every cup.

The tort reform battle started in the 1950’s with the insurance industry and their battles. Early on, they realized that they were in charge of the compensations for personal injury victims. This started a PR campaign of “targeting potential jurors through magazine ads.” They tried to attack lawsuits and jurors so they would vote against personal injury cases. Eventually, they moved towards the grassroots campaigns. They campaigned as regular Americans who were fed up with the justice and litigation systems. Today, advocates still fight these battles through the use of PR methods, “misleading reports, lobbying, and manufactured ‘grassroots’ organizations” (History. (2012). Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.tortreformtruth.com/about-tort-reform/history/).

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

In conclusion, the case of Liebeck v. McDonald's clearly illustrates that companies must be mindful of not harming consumers through defective provides, because consumers that are harmed by products, have the ability to successfully win awards to compensate for damages. With that in