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.

. . . and ignored them all.

Anyone who actually watched this film would know that the McDonald's case is only the first of several cases discussed in the movie. Anyone who knows about the McDonald's case would know that the injuries suffered by this 79 yr old woman were outrageous. She required skin grafts all over her crotch, most of her buttocks, and much of her upper thighs. She had third degree burns so bad she almost died. This woman was no sleaze, no con artist-- she worked her whole life.

Other reviewers seem to ignore that there has been a concerted movement by Karl Rove and his US Chamber of Commerce pals to stack the deck against individual rights in favor of corporations under the guise of "tort reform" and some of their tactics have been appalling-- and this film discusses that as well.

This film, much like Gasland, tells a story that needs to be told, and it's great that HBO has the kahunas to air it.

I wish every American could see this film to understand how their views can be manipulated by high paid corporate lobbyists. It also shows how important our court system is to all of us as long as it is kept clean and independent and not subject to outside influence through the campaign financing process. It is well researched and well produced. I am impressed. I have to commend HBO for this production. It is truly relevant and a great contribution to documentary media. I must say I would not have expected them to support such an insightful production that touches on a topic that exposes some of the worst examples of abuse by corporate America. What Halliburton did to its employee was truly outrageous. You will have to see the film to know what I am talking about.

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.

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!)