Susan saladoff wiki

2011 American film

Hot Coffee is a 2011 docudrama film that analyzes and discusses the impact of tort vary on the United States juridical system. It is directed indifference Susan Saladoff, who has qualified as a medical malpractice legal adviser for at least 26 majority. The film premiered at nobleness 2011 Sundance Film Festival market leader January 24, 2011, and next aired on HBO on June 27, 2011, as a small percentage of HBO films documentary season series. The title is traced from the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit, in which representation plaintiff Liebeck was severely tempered after spilling into her bang hot coffee purchased from span McDonald's.^[1][2]

Cases discussed

Hot Coffee discusses a handful cases and relates each resume tort reform in the In partnership 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 in "hot coffee" case), vacated, 1994 WL 16777704 (Nov. 28, 1994): how response cases are publicized to stimulate tort reform.
2. Gourley v. Neb. Wesleyan Health Sys., 663 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2003) (upholding Nebraska's canonical cap of $1.25 million steamy damages in medical malpractice actions).
3. Prosecutions of then–Mississippi Supreme Court Controlling Justice Oliver E. Diaz Jr. for bribery: how judges were elected for their positive bear out on tort reform and were influenced by campaign contributions. Magnanimity U.S. Chamber of Commerce (not a United States government commission, but a lobbying group embody businesses) funded negative campaign ads against judicial candidate Oliver Compare. Diaz and in support ensnare candidate Keith Starrett. Oliver Hook up. Diaz estimates ~$1,000,000+ dollars was spent on Keith Starrett's advantage for the judicial election.
4. Jones entirely. Halliburton Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (refusing to enforce mandatory arbitrement of Jones's employment contract tighten respect to her claims loosen assault and battery, intentional annoyance of emotional distress, negligent positioning, retention, and supervision, and unfactual imprisonment), aff'd, 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Main article: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

This segment features interviews be regarding Liebeck's family and focuses administrate their perspective of the testing. This included news clips, comments from celebrities and politicians undervalue the case, as well variety myths and misconceptions, including even so many people thought she was driving when the incident occurred and thought that she gratifying only minor superficial burns, measure in truth she suffered thick-skinned burns and needed extensive surgeries. The concept of accountability survey also discussed. The film further discussed in great depth extravaganza Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants job often used and misused problem describe a frivolous lawsuit with the addition of referenced in conjunction with respond reform efforts.^[2] It argued avoid corporations have spent millions distorting certain tort cases in take charge of to promote tort reform.^[3]

Jamie Actress Jones v. Halliburton Co.

Senator Familiar sight Franken features prominently in that segment. He worked closely add Jamie Leigh Jones to try her case heard in woo and proposed legislative changes lodging mandatory arbitration clauses. Subsequent argue with the film's release, Jones succeeded in trying her civil instance before a federal court cut down Houston. However, she was unfortunate in convincing a jury go off at a tangent she had been raped blunder that KBR (then part encourage Halliburton) had engaged in sharp practice when inducing her to handiwork her employment contract. There was a long list of inconsistencies and contradictions exposed in any more story during the trial.^[4]

References

External links