Hot Coffee (2011)

Best movie of this year hands down!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

How does big business turn a multi-million dollar pay-out into a substantial coup for industry and a devastating blow for the civil justice system? Quite easily, according to Susan Saladoff's 'Hot Coffee'.On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a healthy, active 72 year-old woman spilled a cup of boiling hot McDonald's coffee on her inner thigh. Suing McDonald's for damages, she was awarded $160,000 in medical damages and $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages by a jury; a trial judge would later reduce the award, and the two parties settled confidentially. In the meantime Liebeck and her cause were being pilloried by the nation's media - how, they said, could a company be liable for the mishandling error of a patron?Big business latched onto this wave of public opinion to condemn, in a widespread and well- financed media campaign, the rising tide of so-called 'frivolous lawsuits' eating away at the profits of all businesses. 'Tort reform' became the new catch-cry of this push - 'tort' meaning a 'harm' essentially - as industry used its leverage to encourage politicians, judges and the public alike to get behind new regulation that would make pay-outs like the one to Stella Liebeck a mere memory. The problem with this lies between the lines of the Liebeck case. Court photos detailing the extent of Liebeck's injuries - which required two separate skin grafts and over $100,000 worth of medical costs - are horrifying, as are the revelations that McDonald's had received over 700 unanswered complaints about the potential for injury with their standardized coffee temperature. That the jury came down so vehemently on the side of the plaintiff, and the corporation lowered their temperature standard in the wake of the case demonstrates not that this was not the 'frivolous' lawsuit painted in the media, but an appropriate and necessary use of the civil justice system.Not content to rest on this relative bombshell - I for one was embarrassed at my lack of knowledge of the Liebeck case - Saladoff charts how the case was used to systematically introduce US-wide 'tort reform', in the manner of both 'caps on damages' and 'mandatory arbitration' clauses in contract. These 'reforms' ensure that big business is protected from not merely the very few con artists seeking to extort them out of money (of which Liebeck is not one), but also the majority of whom have a reasonable and justified case to put forward to a civil court.The tragedy is this whole sage is not that Liebeck received such a pay-out, but that with these new misnomers of 'reforms', the likes of Liebeck are no longer sufficiently protected from the rich and powerful. Accountability is gradually being eroded, with the tacit consent of the people no less.Concluding Thought: How have I gone this long without knowing the context of the McDonald's case? Should I have been more diligent and found out myself, or can I blame the media?

Sure I know the story we live in a world I sue you you sue me! It's all to common and it's true that many people will fake or play hurt to collect money from someone or some company. So it may be true that our system of awarding folks money for damages within the legal system is abused and gotten out of hand. Yet they are some cases where after seeing you just get steamed up and mad and you want to stand up and fight for the people against the companies and corporations. And in Susan Saladoff's recent HBO documentary "Hot Coffee" you see the evidence of the wrong doing of companies and corporations, as they are now using the law more and more to their advantage thru politics, tort reform, and arbitration. Highlighted is the well known mid 90's McDonald's coffee case from New Mexico. And I must agree when company temperatures are so hot that they cause burns that require skin grafts, then the injured is entitled a money settlement and rightfully justice.This documentary is informative and educational as it showcases the legal system and how people and the courts are affected by lawsuits. It's supported by newscast clips, interviews from legal and committee experts and touching is seeing how many people are done wrong by bad medical practices and corporations with arbitration rules. And the issue and debate of tort reform is interesting you must think should their really be a limit on it? And interesting and revealing is seeing how politics and the court system are becoming intersecting as more and more business type judges are being elected to the courts who are supported by the corporations so that they can be sided with over the common man.No matter what your stance is on the issue of tort, political connection, arbitration and wanting to file lawsuits, after watching this hot steamy revealing documentary "Hot Coffee" you will probably feel like standing up for the little people in their fight against the wrongs and personal physical damages that companies and corporations bring against them. It's clear it shows that the devil is many corporations best friend and arbitration is it's pitchfork. And showcasing tort reform is now a hot political topic everywhere. Overall "Hot Coffee" is one hot steamy documentary not to miss it's tasty energy will inspire you to fight for your legal rights just like those hurt and injured by political corporate greed.

We as a people have to be aware of laws and public policy that is being influenced by big corporations through the use of/and because of money.Laws and public policy directly affect our freedoms as a people. This movie beautifully brings this to light, and uses a number of cases which illustrate corporate influence and just downright greedy behaviour.The narrative is interesting, entertaining and easy to follow. The "lawyer speak" is broken down so everyone can understand it.I highly recommend this movie! (PS. I WAS one of those "err she's suing over hot coffee?" people.. not any more!)

the movie is presented in 4 chapters showing 4 cases. chapter 1 explains the (in)famous McDonalds hot coffee case. chapter 2 explores caps on liability. chapter 3 presents a "claim" of drugging and brutal gang rape that necessitated reconstructive surgery and the relation to binding arbitration and alternate dispute resolution. The section of the movie says what will then happen in the dispute. After the movie was released the person involved has been found to have made false claims. she eventually had a trial and it was found there was no evidence she was raped or suffered reconstructive surgery, her lawsuit was dismissed as baseless. Ergo, this entire section of the movie is untrue. chapter 4 explores judicial elections and/or judicial activism.chapters 1,2,4 are interesting but chapter 3 is so horrendously falsified that the entire work of the director should be discarded.