Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Those who commit offenses and those whose rights are violated have inherent differences between them. At all times, an offender should take responsibility for their wrongdoing. However, when corporations offend individuals, they tend to bully them, especially because individuals lack the financial power and influence that corporations have. The only way to arrive at a neutral solution when corporations can negotiate with individuals they have wronged is through litigation. Therefore, people should be encouraged to sue corporations to ensure that they do the right thing, and Mrs. Liebeck should be commended for bringing the lawsuit against McDonalds.
Without litigation, society will never hold large corporations responsible for their misdeeds – something that they never cease to do. From Saladoff’s documentary, this is the only position that a rational, neutral, and law-abiding individual will arrive at. At the very core of the film is Mrs. Liebeck’s case. Tort reform lobbyists and propagandists belittled the case and misdirected public opinion by distorting the facts of the case (Goodman). What Saladoff does in her film is set the facts of Liebeck v. McDonald’s case right. For instance, one of the magazine and newspaper cutouts in the film has the headline “Rich Coffee-Burn Victim Finding no McSympathy.” The corporation had misled the public into believing that the burns were trivial, and that Mrs. Liebeck was actually driving when she got burned. The opposite was true; it was Mrs. Liebeck’s grandson behind the wheel and she had suffered third degree burns to 16% of her body – nobody should call that trivial.
Saladoff documents Mrs. Betty Farahan, a juror during the hearing of Liebeck v. McDonald’s case, who asserts that McDonald’s was 80% to blame for the damages that Mrs. Liebeck suffered. According to Farahan, it was damning for McDonalds that they had documented over 700 cases that involved customers’ complaints about burns. McDonalds was adamant that the cases were trivial and this shows the firm’s disregard of customer safety. The presiding judge described McDonalds actions as “willful, wanton, and reckless” as he reduced the jury’s punitive damages award from $2.7 million to $480,000. What stood out in this case is that McDonald’s coffee was about 30oF higher than coffee from other sellers or coffee made out of home coffeemakers. Such temperatures exposed customers to the danger of suffering third degree burns in about 2 seconds, compared to 20 seconds if the coffee was 30oF less hot.
In the Caps on Damages with Connor Gourley scenario, Saladoff reveals how enforcing tort reform caps shifts the responsibility of a corporation’s wrongdoing to the taxpayers. After seven years of waiting and three weeks of trial, the jury awarded Gourley $5.6 million without a knowledge that the State of Nebraska caps damages. Eventually, Colin was awarded $1.25 million but his entire treatment plan required money close to $12 million. Colin ended up in Medicaid as no other insurance could cover him with his preexisting conditions – the doctor’s wrongdoing was the taxpayer’s burden now. The proponents of capping damages contend that regulating the amount of losses doctors and insurance companies incur through suits will reduce healthcare costs (Born et al. 1047). However, as shown in the documentary using the state of Texas as an example, with an instituted cap on total damages – both punitive and non-economic – one would have expected healthcare cost in Texas to fall. Nonetheless, by the time of filming, healthcare cost in Texas was rising at a higher rate than the national average.
In summary, the judiciary is the only place where individuals can battle out with corporations on a fair level and expect positive outcomes. Mrs. Liebeck did the right thing by suing McDonalds – it was the only way to hold them accountable for their mistake. However, corporations and politicians in the legislature and executive branches still intend to limit people’s access to justice through tort reform laws, which makes it hard for customers to sue corporations.
Works Cited
Born, Patricia H. et al. “The Effect of Damage Cap Reforms on Medical Malpractice Insurance Market Conditions during Periods of Crises”. Journal of Risk and Insurance, vol. 86, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1045-1071. Wiley. Web.
Goodman, Amy. Interview with the Gourleys, Lisa and Mike Gourley, Parents of Twin Sons, Colin and Connor. Democracy Now, 2011. Web.
Saladoff, Susan, director. Hot Coffee. HBO Documentaries, 2011. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.