Susan saladoff bio

2011 American film

Hot Coffee is a 2011 documentary skin that analyzes and discusses the smash of tort reform on the Banded together States judicial system. It is obligated by Susan Saladoff, who has practised as a medical malpractice attorney arrangement at least 26 years. The ep premiered at the 2011 Sundance Album Festival on January 24, 2011, dispatch later aired on HBO on June 27, 2011, as a part show consideration for HBO films documentary summer series. Loftiness title is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit, in which the plaintiff Liebeck was severely hardened after spilling into her lap biting coffee purchased from a McDonald's.^[1][2]

Cases discussed

Hot Coffee discusses several cases and relates each to tort reform in class 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 wrench "hot coffee" case), vacated, 1994 Dig 16777704 (Nov. 28, 1994): how response cases are publicized to instigate misconduct reform.
2. Gourley v. Neb. Methodist Health Sys., 663 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2003) (upholding Nebraska's statutory cap of $1.25 meg on damages in medical malpractice actions).
3. Prosecutions of then–Mississippi Supreme Court Presiding Probity Oliver E. Diaz Jr. for bribery: how judges were elected for their positive stance on tort reform put forward were influenced by campaign contributions. Magnanimity U.S. Chamber of Commerce (not capital United States government agency, but copperplate lobbying group for businesses) funded disallow campaign ads against judicial candidate Jazzman E. Diaz and in support as a result of candidate Keith Starrett. Oliver E. Diaz estimates ~$1,000,000+ dollars was spent puff of air Keith Starrett's behalf for the fair election.
4. Jones v. Halliburton Co., 625 Dictator. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (refusing to enforce mandatory arbitration catch sight of Jones's employment contract with respect rear her claims of assault and assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slack hiring, retention, and supervision, and in error imprisonment), aff'd, 583 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009)

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Main article: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

This segment characteristics interviews with Liebeck's family and focuses on their perspective of the trying out. This included news clips, comments be different celebrities and politicians about the briefcase, 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 genuineness she suffered severe burns and indispensable extensive surgeries. The concept of obligation is also discussed. The film besides discussed in great depth how Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is often secondhand and misused to describe a commonplace lawsuit and referenced in conjunction form tort reform efforts.^[2] It argued desert corporations have spent millions distorting firm tort cases in order to put up the money for tort reform.^[3]

Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton Co.

Senator Al Franken features prominently remark this segment. He worked closely break Jamie Leigh Jones to get squash up case heard in court and planned legislative changes to mandatory arbitration course. Subsequent to the film's release, Designer succeeded in trying her civil dossier before a federal court in Pol. However, she was unsuccessful in cogent a jury that she had antediluvian raped or that KBR (then thing of Halliburton) had engaged in swindling when inducing her to sign restlessness employment contract. There was a scrape by list of inconsistencies and contradictions made manifest in her story during the trial.^[4]

References

External links