Hot Coffee

I admit I'm a devotee of documentaries. "Hot Coffee" delivers on both substance and emotion.

It tells the stories of individuals who become negatively affected by so called tort reform laws. It begins with giving the viewer a very detailed study of the famous McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit. We see that McDonalds at that time had over 700 cases of folks being burned by the 180-190 degree coffee served at McDonalds. We see the horrific burns suffered by the woman in the famous case and we understand why this lawsuit was important.

We see the case of a family dealing with a brain damaged son where the Nebraska law capped their damages so much that they had to go on Medicaid to care for their son. The doctor involved had several previous malpractice cases brought on her. Who ended up paying? The tax payers of Nebraska through Medicaid.

And the most heinous case of the woman raped, beaten, and locked in a cargo box by Halliburton's KBR division in Iraq. Because her contract mandated arbitration, she was not allowed to sue Halliburton in court.

The film also shows us just how much $$$ is spent by corporate and US Chamber lobbyists to stack state courts with pro-business/tort reform judges. And yes, Karl Rove is a key player in focusing attention on the need for tort reform.

In one case, Texas, under then Gov George Bush, passes sweeping caps on tort damages claiming that this is significantly reduce health care costs....turns out health care costs continued to skyrocket especially since any savings from these caps were NOT mandated to be used in lowering any costs to providers or insurers.

Bottom line....it's easy to manipulate the masses when big money interests want to control the message. "Hot Coffee" does a very good job of showing how we are told that juries can't be trusted to hand out punishment to those business interests who wrong and hurt the little guy...and $$$ then buys our politicians or courts to enact tort reform to benefit those in power.

Watch Hot Coffee and learn.

This is the "other side" of the McDonalds coffee tale, along with a lot more interesting information on tort reform, the buying of judicial elections, and the signing away of our legal rights without our knowledge. While some may call it slanted to one side, the issues have been fully explored from the opposing view in the media, so I found this perspective very interesting.

Please don't limit yourself to just the coffee issue- this is not what the movie is about. There is a good bit of information packed into a rather short period of time, and while it might be a bit slow paced, it is better viewed completely. If you are interested in how big corporations skew our system in the United States, you will enjoy this film.

We as a people have to be aware of laws and public policy that is being influenced by big corporations through the use of/and because of money.

Laws and public policy directly affect our freedoms as a people.

This movie beautifully brings this to light, and uses a number of cases which illustrate corporate influence and just downright greedy behaviour.

The narrative is interesting, entertaining and easy to follow. The "lawyer speak" is broken down so everyone can understand it.

I highly recommend this movie! (PS. I WAS one of those "err she's suing over hot coffee?" people.. not any more!)

"Eye-opening indictment of the way big business spins the media." —Variety

"Stunning debut … Sends audiences out of the theater thinking in a brand new way." —Washington Post

"Entertaining, informative … vividly illuminating." —Hollywood Reporter

I can't top Variety and the Washington Post, but I can tell you "Hot Coffee" is an unbelievably informative story that questions the governments true intentions when it comes to tort reform and the mandatory arbitration argument.

I loved it and I hope you do to!

I saw Hot Coffee at the San Francisco Film Festival last night (4/22/2011). Trial lawyer Saladoff has done well with this debut documentary feature and the case studies were presented well.

That being said, I think it needs greater balance in order to work as a serious statement. The subjects of tort reform and mandatory arbitration are her targets in directing this film. 4 cases are presented supporting her thesis that they are damaging to democracy and not supportive to the masses who are looking for accountability when treated badly by corporations.

I am not defending tort reform or mandatory arbitration because I don't know enough about the issues or the subject. After seeing this movie, I feel the same way, in fact I feel a thirst to hear from the other side as this film had me feeling manipulated by cherry picked cases and emotionalism. I don't doubt that there will sometimes be harm done to the individual by corporations but there are also "opportunistic" cases brought forth by individuals when the situation calls for it. There was no addressing this in the film and no explication of what happens to professionals such as doctors when they are, perhaps, unjustly accused by individuals.

Saladoff's claim is that the "other side's" story has been told for the past 25 years. I don't feel I know that story well enough and would have appreciated more background of why tort reform and mandatory arbitration exist in the first place and, perhaps, even a story or two where their existence may have worked in everybody's favor.

When all was said and done, the film painted a dire situation for and effectively raised strong emotion against, tort reform and mandatory arbitration. I felt a trifle manipulated in the process.