Many Americans are familiar with the McDonald’s spilled hot glass lawsuit that practically even became a joke. The court decision in favor of the plaintiff, to whom the restaurant paid compensation for the damage caused, is often parodied in the movies (Hot Coffee, 00:05-00:53). Without knowing the details of the case, an ordinary person can find it frivolous since it appears that anyone can get a massive amount of money just due to a hot drink spill.
However, the situation changes when one learns that the plaintiff Liebeck got severe burns and spent considerable financial resources to cover medical costs. Moreover, the trial revealed that Mcdonald’s received more than 700 similar complaints, and these people never obtained any compensation at all. McDonald’s policy of serving drinks at temperatures up to 205 degrees Fahrenheit has caused damage to hundreds of customers.
This kind of temperature is comparable to a hot radiator during a drive and sufficient to peel the skin from bones in just a few seconds (Batchelor). These and other circumstances, thoroughly investigated in the documentary movies Hot Coffee directed by Saladoff, testify that the Liebeck and McDonald’s case is far from frivolous. On the contrary, the lawsuit reveals a critical national issue of tort reform.
Tort reform is one of the most sensitive topics in American politics. Tort actions represent such kinds of law claims that involve damage compensation for wrongful actions, primarily financially. The Liebeck and McDonald case has had a key influence on Texas tort legislation, provoking increased lobbying for the controversial reform that undermines citizens’ compensation rights. Major federal media were divided, arguing about how frivolous the case was. Some compared it to silly lawsuits like a student suing college because of a loud campus party. The problem is that many Americans had a fundamentally wrong perception of the national law system, assuming this system’s error was resulting in flooding in frivolous lawsuits (Hot Coffee). In an attempt to correct this error and redistribute resources more efficiently, tort reform was born.
The idea of the reform was to reduce frivolous lawsuits and consequently limit what a jury awards, contributing instead to healthcare and more doctors working in Texas. However, the number of medical malpractice cases filed in the state dropped by two-thirds (Carter), weakening the power of citizens to claim compensation for received damages since medical malpractice suits can be expensive to pursue (“Texas Tort Reform Didn’t Work” 03:15–05:21).
Moreover, the reform practically displaced lawyers specialized in this field, forcing them to leave the state (Carter). Attorneys became less willing to risk when taking a tort case as the potential payoff often cannot recoup all the expenses associated with a particular tort. Therefore, it is evident that the reform did not reach its goal, conversely leading to unforeseen blasting consequences for the Teas civil justice system.
While ordinary buyers whose civil rights were in doubt suffered, some benefited from the reform. First of all, large companies and institutions, the irresponsibility of which remained safe, became the main winners of the new law system. In part, these players were able to achieve the implementation of the tort reform due to lobbying their interests and pumping money into jury elections (Jackson). Furthermore, medical malpractice cases have decreased in both number and value, which has been highly advantageous for physicians due to the dramatic drop in insurance costs (Vicens). In the end, in theory, the reform was designed to improve the lives of citizens, but in the end, it was far from ordinary Americans who won.
Overall, the tort reform restricts the right of people to go to court to defend their rights and obtain compensation for damages. Of course, a large stream of frivolous cases can harm the system. However, how and who should decide which case is just sinlessness and which one is worthy of the court’s attention? More specific and feasible criteria for frivolity should be introduced to reduce the burden imposed on the law system and avoid civil rights being disrupted.
Works Cited
Batchelor, Suzanne. “An Imaginary Crisis.” The Texas Observer. 2019. Web.
Carter, Terry. “Tort Reform Texas Style.” ABA Journal, 2006. Web.
Hot Coffee. Directed by Susan Saladoff, distributed by HBO, 2011. Tubi.
Jackson, Jay. “Legislators and Special Interests Are Making Sure We Get the State Court Judges They Want.” ABA Journal, 2013. Web.
“Texas Tort Reform Didn’t Work.” YouTube, uploaded by Stop MICRA. 2014. Web.
Vicens, Aj. “How Dark Money Is Taking Over Judicial Elections.” Mother Jones. 2014. Web.