Hot Coffee

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.

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.

Yes this film covers one side of the tort reform and mandatory arbitration argument. Yes the cases presented have been chosen to ignite a certain emotional response. But is this a bad thing? In a nation where it seems that the people have grown jaded to government actions, it takes a certain amount of emotional stirring to get them off their seat. This film does just that.

Hot Coffee shows us what damage can be done when we listen to PR or shoddy journalism without investigating their claims further. Before watching this film if asked about the leading story, enter McDonald's infamous coffee spill, I would have been right in line with those ready to condemn the clumsy patron. But after being presented with more of the facts from the case I am now appalled at how quickly I jumped on a bandwagon led by ignorance and corporate damage control. Susan Saladoff succeeds in bringing these issues down to a level we can all understand. From what started the drive for tort reform and how it can hurt the victims of these cases, to what measures have been taken by big business to protect their interests, each story presented guides us through the evolution of this process with poignant relevance.

In reference to a previous review I also wanted to clear up that in no way does this film try to pass the buck. No one, including the victims, denies there were things they could have done differently to help prevent these accidents from occurring. What is being found in each of these cases is a consistent amount of gross negligence on the part of the companies involved. None of these examples were the first of their type submitted to the businesses. So how do you get these types of corporations to changed flawed policy? You hit them where it hurts. This is why the jury, not the victim (in this case), sought such high dollar damages, to prevent this sort of accident from occurring again. If you missed that the first time, you might wanna give this documentary another go.

With that said, Hot Coffee is an effective and engaging documentary with a clear message. This viewer came away feeling more empowered, and will think twice next time he signs the dotted line.

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.

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.