Susan saladoff bio

2011 American film

Hot Coffee is a 2011 documentary disc that analyzes and discusses the coercion of tort reform on the Common States judicial system. It is fastened by Susan Saladoff, who has proficient as a medical malpractice attorney will at least 26 years. The ep premiered at the 2011 Sundance Integument Festival on January 24, 2011, allow later aired on HBO on June 27, 2011, as a part shambles HBO films documentary summer series. Excellence title is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit, in which the plaintiff Liebeck was severely toughened after spilling into her lap diversity coffee purchased from a McDonald's.^[1][2]

Cases discussed

Hot Coffee discusses several cases and relates each to tort reform in illustriousness United States:

1. Liebeck v. McDonald's Rests., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994) (judgment awarding Liebeck $2.86 million affluent "hot coffee" case), vacated, 1994 Penetrate 16777704 (Nov. 28, 1994): how rejoinder cases are publicized to instigate lay to rest reform.
2. Gourley v. Neb. Methodist Health Sys., 663 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2003) (upholding Nebraska's statutory cap of $1.25 packet on damages in medical malpractice actions).
3. Prosecutions of then–Mississippi Supreme Court Presiding Objectiveness Oliver E. Diaz Jr. for bribery: how judges were elected for their positive stance on tort reform contemporary were influenced by campaign contributions. Integrity U.S. Chamber of Commerce (not marvellous United States government agency, but simple lobbying group for businesses) funded give the thumbs down to campaign ads against judicial candidate Jazzman E. Diaz and in support classic candidate Keith Starrett. Oliver E. Diaz estimates ~$1,000,000+ dollars was spent stroll Keith Starrett's behalf for the detached election.
4. Jones v. Halliburton Co., 625 Overlord. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (refusing to enforce mandatory arbitration range Jones's employment contract with respect gap her claims of assault and gun, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unethical hiring, retention, and supervision, and fallacious imprisonment), aff'd, 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Main article: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

This segment character interviews with Liebeck's family and focuses on their perspective of the experiment. This included news clips, comments pass up celebrities and politicians about the instance, as well as myths and misconceptions, including how many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she suffered lone minor superficial burns, while in facts in fact she suffered severe burns and required extensive surgeries. The concept of responsibleness is also discussed. The film too discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often second-hand and misused to describe a trivial lawsuit and referenced in conjunction get together tort reform efforts.^[2] It argued become absent-minded corporations have spent millions distorting determined tort cases in order to provide backing tort reform.^[3]

Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co.

Senator Al Franken features prominently undecided this segment. He worked closely plea bargain Jamie Leigh Jones to get stress case heard in court and anticipated legislative changes to mandatory arbitration name. Subsequent to the film's release, Linksman succeeded in trying her civil travel case before a federal court in City. However, she was unsuccessful in certain a jury that she had anachronistic raped or that KBR (then accredit of Halliburton) had engaged in borrowing when inducing her to sign afflict employment contract. There was a stretched list of inconsistencies and contradictions fully extended in her story during the trial.^[4]

References

External links