Johnna Keever
The Paw Print
Spilled Coffee, presented by the Alpha Zeta Kappa, political science honor society at Adams State hosted at night of debate, and movie on the issue of tort reform.
Local attorney and Adams State alumni class of 1994 Keith Vance, took time out to come and discuss issues in civil justice. The night started with Vance talking about the problems of juries and judges not being able to provide a person with serious injuries a decent amount of compensation.
Then they showed documentary was based on a case of a 79 year old women who was burned by a cup of coffee she ordered at McDonalds. She sued the corporation but was criticized for taking action that most people would call a frivolous lawsuit.
The facts on the case and two others in the video would justify the actions that were taking when the people that are injured go looking for justice.
In the case of Liebeck vs McDonald the compensation for her injuries would not exceed two days the restaurant would make in sales at $2.7 million. The jury awarded Lieback $200,000 in compensatory damages, but that was reduced to $160,000 since she was found to be 20 percent at fault in the spill. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages that was the equal amount of two days of McDonald’s coffee sales.
The trail court reduced the punitive award to $480,000 or three times compensatory damages even with McDonalds having been found reckless, insensitive, and stubborn.
McDonald’s coffee was regulated to be at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, when something that hot comes in contact with the skin it takes only one to seven seconds to cause server burns.
There have been over 700 complaints between 1982 and 1992 about their coffee being too hot, some having third degree burns but the company disregard customer complains.
Since the 1980s big business have used public relations to convince people that juries are out of control, and there are many frivolous lawsuits, and the civil justice system needs to be reformed.
Big business wanted to limit citizen access to the court system, the only place where the average person can go head to head with those that have money and power in the United States and still have a fair chance at justice. The tort reform limits those chances. Corporations have got into politics, and made laws that only allow a serious injured person so much when they take action in the justice system. Juries and judges have been stripped of their authority after hearing cases, and making decisions on compensation based on each specific facts of their situation.
With caps on damages it limit the amount a person can receive for compensations on a personal injury civil justice cases.
Tort reform is to put technical limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. Reformers feel that had misstated the existence of any real factual issues, and the opposition feels that it is disguised corporate welfare.
The issues of tort reform is it shields businesses, mostly large corporations from having to pay just compensation to consumers, patients, and clients for damages from fraud, negligence, medical malpractice and other legitimate tort claims.
The limitations on punitive damages and other restrictions on plaintiff’s rights reduce corporate accountability.
Having known this information, many people feel that there would be no point in suing a company for compensation after being seriously injured.
To change Tort Reform citizens need to be aware, and contact their local government to get the laws on caps changed.
What’s Been Said…