| ||||||||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Many people recall the infamous 1994 episode in which an elderly woman named Stella Liebeck spilled a cup of scalding hot McDonald's coffee in her lap, resulting in major burns and a lawsuit against the restaurant chain that earned her nearly $2.6 million in damages (many fewer remember that the amount was very substantially reduced in a subsequent judgment). Filmmaker Susan Saladoff obviously remembers--the incident provided the title for and is featured prominently in Hot Coffee, her documentary about the nature of civil suits. But Saladoff, who is herself a lawyer, has an unexpected take on the matter. The Liebeck case, the film suggests, was in fact a public relations coup for McDonald's, who helped turn it into Exhibit A in the campaign to limit so-called "frivolous" lawsuits, also known as "tort reform." But while those who advocated tort reform contended that it would be good for everyone, including taxpayers, the principal beneficiary was big business (President George W. Bush's crusade to limit medical malpractice suits is represented here as a gift to giant insurance companies), while genuine victims, including Liebeck, were denied justice (when several man-on-the-street interviewees are shown graphic photos of her severe injuries, they quickly change their tunes about the frivolity of her suit). Other serious charges are leveled in the course of the film, which argues that caps on the amount of damages awarded by juries in civil suits have been disastrous for deserving plaintiffs; that the big business-loving U.S. Chamber of Commerce has helped defeat any number of state supreme court justices whose rulings have favored plaintiffs over corporate defendants; and that the insistence by many companies that employees sign contracts forbidding them to sue their employers, forcing them to instead submit to mandatory arbitration, has put their fates into the hands of people hired solely to protect the company's interests (the tale of one young woman who worked for Halliburton in Iraq is especially disturbing). It's unlikely that Hot Coffee will be garnering many positive reviews on Fox News, as the film's point of view is decidedly pro-consumer/anti-corporation. Still, regardless of one's political leanings, it will be hard not to be shocked by what it says about our legal system. --Sam Graham
Product Description
Product Description
Everyone knows the case of the woman who sued McDonald s over spilled coffee. Or do they? More than 15 years after making international news, the case continues to be cited as an example of citizens who use frivolous lawsuits to take unfair advantage of the American legal system. But is that an accurate portrayal of the facts?
An eye-opening documentary with jaw-dropping revelations, HOT COFFEE exposes how corporations spend millions on propaganda campaigns to distort Americans' view of lawsuits forever changing the civil justice system. By examining the impact of tort reform on the lives of ordinary citizens, the film shows how Americans give up their Constitutional rights in all sorts of ways without knowing it for example, by voting for caps on damages or signing away your rights in contracts. Through interviews with politicians, judges, lawyers and ordinary citizens, first-time filmmaker and former public-interest lawyer Susan Saladoff delves into the facts of four cases to tear apart the conventional wisdom about jackpot justice.
Special Features
- Deleted Scenes
- Interview with the Director
- Take Action
- Trailer
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
83 of 92 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Hot Coffee Is A TORT, so tort reform = let the scalding coffee run down my legs
July 2, 2011
Format:DVD
HOT COFFEE (dir. Susan Saladoff, 2011, 85 minutes) is an HBO documentary that is Oscar-worthy and should be bought/shown in every school, town council meeting ... I can't think of enough places. Never have I seen a documentary that taught me so much in so little time. And what I learned is just how badly the rights of American citizens have been damaged, how horribly corrupt our judicial and legislative branches have become.
This is a documentary about tort reform. If you are like nearly 100% of America, you'll be asking what that is. I will tell you without spoiling the documentary - you WILL want to see this for yourself.
Presenting itself in a tightly organized, well developed set of four "exhibits", HOT COFFEE begins with a case I will describe herein - the others I will leave for the viewer to watch and learn. The "exhibits" consist of: I. Public Relations Campaign; II. Caps On Damages; III. Judicial Elections; and IV. Mandatory Arbitration.
In "Exhibit I" we learn about the true story of the lady from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who burned herself with McDonald's coffee. Stella Liebeck was along for a drive with her nephew (she was a passenger), and they stopped at McDonald's.
Let me repeat and clarify one thing: Stella was with her NEPHEW, not her grandson. The fact that so many people report she was with her grandson is a sad example of the way people pay little mind to anything they read or hear. If you can't keep that fact straight - heaven knows how you could make that error - then what hope can you have of comprehending Stella's case?!
Back to it: Stella ordered coffee which was so demonically hot that when she spilled it on her lap she suffered life-threatening 3rd degree burns (an accident that I am sure has happened to us all: even Lord Byron told a famous story about spilling tea on himself). This was not helped by her age and the resulting thinness of her skin, especially in the areas the coffee spilled. She had no way of getting to the spilled coffee in time and certainly no relief in sight.
Stella endured a lengthy stay in hospital, where she required surgery, skin grafts and therapy. It was a miracle that she survived. Thinking McDonald's should pay for her $10,000 hospital treatment, she and family approached McD's. They got the raspberry, so they sued.
Stella was awarded over $2 million - but she was left with a damages award of less than $200,000. She settled with McDonald's out of court. The campaign against her "frivolous" lawsuit - a/k/a "junk" lawsuit - shocked all who knew about her sufferings. (My thanks to some great reviewers who clarified this point for me.)
You see, a "tort" is a "harm". She was harmed by McDonald's via their insanely hot coffee. "Tort reform" is another term for "screw the citizen in cases of harm". Tort reformists jumped all over this case as the example of the epoch. Not knowing the horrors of the injuries suffered by this elderly lady, and not caring, the monsters that wield power began the campaign to take away our right to have our day in court. That, under any and all circumstances, is un-Constitutional.
The Chamber of Commerce is a private organization of high-octane superpower corporations, and one of the many things they do is rig judicial campaigns any way they can so the judges on the state supreme courts will rule in their favor when tort cases arise. Yet this is not the worst of it. Along with legislation state-by-state capping damages a jury can award, the C.O.C. also succeeded in another devious device: mandatory arbitration.
The mandatory (or "binding") arbitration clause in any contract says you (the contractee) cannot sue the contractor. Instead, you only get mandatory arbitration by an arbitration company, chosen by your contractor, and this is a secret, final-word hearing that will not be in your favor.
In other words, these companies - many phone companies among them - rob you of your "day in court" should the need for that day arise. I recall when I first learned about this issue: a physician who had an unpaid insurance claim in arbitration. The weird thing is doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and all other corporate monsters are the ones who benefit from arbitration clauses.
In business, Americans have the right to get what they bargained for - it is the law of the land. Mandatory arbitration plus caps on damages in tort cases fly in the face of that basic right. Often, when you purchase utilities or insurance, you may subsequently get a supplemental flyer - the type no one in their right mind ever reads - and the mandatory arbitration clause is included in there.
So it is that the arbitration clauses aren't even being put directly into the contract. People have the absolute right to know and be informed about arbitration clauses. See how they are being informed? One of the many wise lessons to be learned from this excellent film.
A few exemplary cases are documented in the film: in the instance of caps on damages, in which a jury can award whatever they want (because you won't get that anyway), we learn of a family that can never fully meet the needs of their brain-damaged son. Why? Their damages award was automatically capped. The jury, as usual, didn't know that fact. "Caps relieve the wrongdoer," says one attorney.
In the case of judicial elections, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, an anti-tort reform justice, was hounded and crucified over and over during his bid for re-election. The powers wanted a pro-tort reform justice.
In the case of mandatory arbitration, we learn about a young lady who worked for Halliburton and went to Iraq. What happened to her there, and how she was denied justice for over four years, all because of the sneaky arbitration clause in her employment contract, will make your skin crawl.
GET THIS. WATCH IT. Learn from it and do not forget the lessons you will learn. Because the only way to fix all this is to first undo the ignorance that reigns in this country. We must learn about these matters. Very likely, you have at least a dozen contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses in them, such as your cell phone account, credit cards, insurances, who knows?!
YOU will know after you watch this fantastic, balanced, must-see documentary. You have the right to sue someone who has harmed you. You have the right to your court time. You have the right "to get what you bargained for." As one attorney says, "When you win a case, you win it ... not only for yourself ... but also for [all] other people."
Stella Liebeck, the woman who nearly died from that McDonald's hot coffee, passed away at the age of 91 in 2004. There is still talk about her case, talk laced with disgust. Your disgust will do a 180 after you learn what you need to learn here.
No more hot coffee!
This is a documentary about tort reform. If you are like nearly 100% of America, you'll be asking what that is. I will tell you without spoiling the documentary - you WILL want to see this for yourself.
Presenting itself in a tightly organized, well developed set of four "exhibits", HOT COFFEE begins with a case I will describe herein - the others I will leave for the viewer to watch and learn. The "exhibits" consist of: I. Public Relations Campaign; II. Caps On Damages; III. Judicial Elections; and IV. Mandatory Arbitration.
In "Exhibit I" we learn about the true story of the lady from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who burned herself with McDonald's coffee. Stella Liebeck was along for a drive with her nephew (she was a passenger), and they stopped at McDonald's.
Let me repeat and clarify one thing: Stella was with her NEPHEW, not her grandson. The fact that so many people report she was with her grandson is a sad example of the way people pay little mind to anything they read or hear. If you can't keep that fact straight - heaven knows how you could make that error - then what hope can you have of comprehending Stella's case?!
Back to it: Stella ordered coffee which was so demonically hot that when she spilled it on her lap she suffered life-threatening 3rd degree burns (an accident that I am sure has happened to us all: even Lord Byron told a famous story about spilling tea on himself). This was not helped by her age and the resulting thinness of her skin, especially in the areas the coffee spilled. She had no way of getting to the spilled coffee in time and certainly no relief in sight.
Stella endured a lengthy stay in hospital, where she required surgery, skin grafts and therapy. It was a miracle that she survived. Thinking McDonald's should pay for her $10,000 hospital treatment, she and family approached McD's. They got the raspberry, so they sued.
Stella was awarded over $2 million - but she was left with a damages award of less than $200,000. She settled with McDonald's out of court. The campaign against her "frivolous" lawsuit - a/k/a "junk" lawsuit - shocked all who knew about her sufferings. (My thanks to some great reviewers who clarified this point for me.)
You see, a "tort" is a "harm". She was harmed by McDonald's via their insanely hot coffee. "Tort reform" is another term for "screw the citizen in cases of harm". Tort reformists jumped all over this case as the example of the epoch. Not knowing the horrors of the injuries suffered by this elderly lady, and not caring, the monsters that wield power began the campaign to take away our right to have our day in court. That, under any and all circumstances, is un-Constitutional.
The Chamber of Commerce is a private organization of high-octane superpower corporations, and one of the many things they do is rig judicial campaigns any way they can so the judges on the state supreme courts will rule in their favor when tort cases arise. Yet this is not the worst of it. Along with legislation state-by-state capping damages a jury can award, the C.O.C. also succeeded in another devious device: mandatory arbitration.
The mandatory (or "binding") arbitration clause in any contract says you (the contractee) cannot sue the contractor. Instead, you only get mandatory arbitration by an arbitration company, chosen by your contractor, and this is a secret, final-word hearing that will not be in your favor.
In other words, these companies - many phone companies among them - rob you of your "day in court" should the need for that day arise. I recall when I first learned about this issue: a physician who had an unpaid insurance claim in arbitration. The weird thing is doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and all other corporate monsters are the ones who benefit from arbitration clauses.
In business, Americans have the right to get what they bargained for - it is the law of the land. Mandatory arbitration plus caps on damages in tort cases fly in the face of that basic right. Often, when you purchase utilities or insurance, you may subsequently get a supplemental flyer - the type no one in their right mind ever reads - and the mandatory arbitration clause is included in there.
So it is that the arbitration clauses aren't even being put directly into the contract. People have the absolute right to know and be informed about arbitration clauses. See how they are being informed? One of the many wise lessons to be learned from this excellent film.
A few exemplary cases are documented in the film: in the instance of caps on damages, in which a jury can award whatever they want (because you won't get that anyway), we learn of a family that can never fully meet the needs of their brain-damaged son. Why? Their damages award was automatically capped. The jury, as usual, didn't know that fact. "Caps relieve the wrongdoer," says one attorney.
In the case of judicial elections, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, an anti-tort reform justice, was hounded and crucified over and over during his bid for re-election. The powers wanted a pro-tort reform justice.
In the case of mandatory arbitration, we learn about a young lady who worked for Halliburton and went to Iraq. What happened to her there, and how she was denied justice for over four years, all because of the sneaky arbitration clause in her employment contract, will make your skin crawl.
GET THIS. WATCH IT. Learn from it and do not forget the lessons you will learn. Because the only way to fix all this is to first undo the ignorance that reigns in this country. We must learn about these matters. Very likely, you have at least a dozen contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses in them, such as your cell phone account, credit cards, insurances, who knows?!
YOU will know after you watch this fantastic, balanced, must-see documentary. You have the right to sue someone who has harmed you. You have the right to your court time. You have the right "to get what you bargained for." As one attorney says, "When you win a case, you win it ... not only for yourself ... but also for [all] other people."
Stella Liebeck, the woman who nearly died from that McDonald's hot coffee, passed away at the age of 91 in 2004. There is still talk about her case, talk laced with disgust. Your disgust will do a 180 after you learn what you need to learn here.
No more hot coffee!
31 of 34 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Real David Versus Goliath Story--The Continued Intrusion Of Private Sector Interests Into The American Judicial System
August 25, 2011
Format:DVD
I always consider myself somewhat of a jaded individual. Not much surprises me anymore when it comes to almost any topic especially as it relates to government and/or big business. I, like many I'm sure, remember the notorious case where a woman sued McDonalds after being scalded by their hot coffee. It became a national punchline and represented, to me, everything that was wrong with the contemporary legal system. Someone sued because their coffee was hot! How ridiculous! In hindsight, after viewing Susan Saladoff's incendiary and eye-opening documentary "Hot Coffee," I may have to admit that I wasn't in possession of all the facts. And that's just the way special interest groups wanted it! In four distinct sections, Saladoff's film takes on different cases (starting with the infamous Hot Coffee incident) that have led the justice system to favor corporate interests over that of the common citizen.
Section One is the infamous Hot Coffee case. Branded a frivolous lawsuit (although I no longer think so), this jury decision for the plaintive caused a national media firestorm. The idea of the case, not the facts, were publicized as a platform for tort reform (procedural limits on the ability to file claims).
Section Two addresses another aspect of tort reform--the capping on damages that may be awarded by juries. The example in this instance revolves around a Nebraska family who have suffered at the hands of blatant medical error. The couple was awarded a six million dollar judgement to cover a lifetime of care for a son who experienced brain damage and severe physical trauma and will, essentially, never grow-up mentally. Their state has a cap on damages and automatically reduced the judgement significantly.
Section Three documents the persecution of Mississippi justice Oliver Diaz. In a dramatic fashion, Diaz's seat was challenged by candidates with funding by big business who were strong on tort reform and corporate interests. In a harrowing turn of events, Diaz was implicated in numerous nefarious illegalities and fought for his life and freedom--not just a judgeship.
Section Four deals with the infamous Halliburton case where a young women alleged that the company put her in harm's way which led to a brutal physical assault. As the company had a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment contract, the alleged victim was subject to in-house investigation where, of course, Halliburton was always in control. The film showcases her fight to have the details of her case heard by a real court system.
I have tried not to be overtly political in any of this review. And whether or not you accept all of Saladoff's propositions at face value, there is certainly plenty to think about here. It is an amazingly effective and affecting documentary. I had a visceral and emotional response to this film--it made me upset, confused, disappointed, and angry. I talked about it for days afterwards and recommended it to many people. In my mind, this important film is one of the year's most provocative documentaries. KGHarris, 8/11.
Section One is the infamous Hot Coffee case. Branded a frivolous lawsuit (although I no longer think so), this jury decision for the plaintive caused a national media firestorm. The idea of the case, not the facts, were publicized as a platform for tort reform (procedural limits on the ability to file claims).
Section Two addresses another aspect of tort reform--the capping on damages that may be awarded by juries. The example in this instance revolves around a Nebraska family who have suffered at the hands of blatant medical error. The couple was awarded a six million dollar judgement to cover a lifetime of care for a son who experienced brain damage and severe physical trauma and will, essentially, never grow-up mentally. Their state has a cap on damages and automatically reduced the judgement significantly.
Section Three documents the persecution of Mississippi justice Oliver Diaz. In a dramatic fashion, Diaz's seat was challenged by candidates with funding by big business who were strong on tort reform and corporate interests. In a harrowing turn of events, Diaz was implicated in numerous nefarious illegalities and fought for his life and freedom--not just a judgeship.
Section Four deals with the infamous Halliburton case where a young women alleged that the company put her in harm's way which led to a brutal physical assault. As the company had a mandatory arbitration clause in their employment contract, the alleged victim was subject to in-house investigation where, of course, Halliburton was always in control. The film showcases her fight to have the details of her case heard by a real court system.
I have tried not to be overtly political in any of this review. And whether or not you accept all of Saladoff's propositions at face value, there is certainly plenty to think about here. It is an amazingly effective and affecting documentary. I had a visceral and emotional response to this film--it made me upset, confused, disappointed, and angry. I talked about it for days afterwards and recommended it to many people. In my mind, this important film is one of the year's most provocative documentaries. KGHarris, 8/11.
27 of 30 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
TORT - MEANS HARM - When a TORT is committed - someone has been harmed in some way..
August 6, 2011
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
Essential information is revealed here within this powerful documentary.
Here is the detailed unveiling of corporate multi-million-dollar propaganda campaigns,
intentionally ment to confuse and brainwash Americans.
Photo's are shown here of the deep burns Stella Liebeck suffered in the McDonald's hot coffee incident.
She was 79 at the time, she required numerous skin graphs and nearly died.
But the industry twisted the case to make it the poster child for frivolous lawsuits.
Meanwhile McDonald's kept a low profile on the fact that they previously had,
between January 1983 to March 1992, over 700 burn cases.
Corporations have armed themselves with these tactics,
plus powerful unrelenting lobbing, and friends in high places.
They have extensively campaigned to affect jury's and senator's to set cap's on damage awards.
And in addition they have among other things,
actually managed to change a CRUCIAL part of our 200 year old constitution of the United States.
Thus they unbound themselves from prior limits,
and now can give unlimited donations to the politician's who will support their issues.
In other words, they control the add campaigns which ultimately sway which politicians American's vote for.
Opening this floodgate means corporations literally hold the future of most American's in their hands.
This documentary is a stunning and reveiling well segmented account of the battle over Tort reform,
and what IS happening to America.
Reveiled here are many devices and methods that are used.
Documented footage shows that the whole point of the Tort reform is to keep the public from accessing the courts.
All public, no matter if frivolous or honest.
Camera's follow individuals as they try to access the courts for restitution for the wrongs done to them.
That's when they find out the true meaning of Tort "reform" and what's happened to their rights.
U.S. maps are high-lighted to show which states have which caps on damages, there can be three kinds:
Punitive damages,
Non-economic,
Total caps.
Each category is explained.
Another way to block a person's right to sue,
is when you agree whether you know it or not to 'arritration'.
This common tactic is exposed and explained.
Information is given about the immensely large,
extremly powerful and very corrupt U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This is not a government agency, it's an enormous mass of corporations.
They are exposed for who they are, how they sway elections, and what their intent is.
This is likely the most accurate, deeply informative documentary you'll ever have an opportunity to own.
Every household should watch this documentary, and understand it's impact.
Here is the detailed unveiling of corporate multi-million-dollar propaganda campaigns,
intentionally ment to confuse and brainwash Americans.
Photo's are shown here of the deep burns Stella Liebeck suffered in the McDonald's hot coffee incident.
She was 79 at the time, she required numerous skin graphs and nearly died.
But the industry twisted the case to make it the poster child for frivolous lawsuits.
Meanwhile McDonald's kept a low profile on the fact that they previously had,
between January 1983 to March 1992, over 700 burn cases.
Corporations have armed themselves with these tactics,
plus powerful unrelenting lobbing, and friends in high places.
They have extensively campaigned to affect jury's and senator's to set cap's on damage awards.
And in addition they have among other things,
actually managed to change a CRUCIAL part of our 200 year old constitution of the United States.
Thus they unbound themselves from prior limits,
and now can give unlimited donations to the politician's who will support their issues.
In other words, they control the add campaigns which ultimately sway which politicians American's vote for.
Opening this floodgate means corporations literally hold the future of most American's in their hands.
This documentary is a stunning and reveiling well segmented account of the battle over Tort reform,
and what IS happening to America.
Reveiled here are many devices and methods that are used.
Documented footage shows that the whole point of the Tort reform is to keep the public from accessing the courts.
All public, no matter if frivolous or honest.
Camera's follow individuals as they try to access the courts for restitution for the wrongs done to them.
That's when they find out the true meaning of Tort "reform" and what's happened to their rights.
U.S. maps are high-lighted to show which states have which caps on damages, there can be three kinds:
Punitive damages,
Non-economic,
Total caps.
Each category is explained.
Another way to block a person's right to sue,
is when you agree whether you know it or not to 'arritration'.
This common tactic is exposed and explained.
Information is given about the immensely large,
extremly powerful and very corrupt U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This is not a government agency, it's an enormous mass of corporations.
They are exposed for who they are, how they sway elections, and what their intent is.
This is likely the most accurate, deeply informative documentary you'll ever have an opportunity to own.
Every household should watch this documentary, and understand it's impact.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
A momumental acheivement!
'Hot Coffee' is an extremely precise, well researched and ultimately disturbing charge against political money's influence on law in America. Read more
Published 3 days ago by Mighty Whitey
5.0 out of 5 stars
Infuriating & Inspiring
I remember the very first time a forced arbitration agreement was placed in front of me to sign. I had applied for and gotten a very good job. Read more
Published 4 days ago by SpirituallySpeaking
5.0 out of 5 stars
Educational and interesting
Four well chosen court cases demonstrate changes and problems in our civil court system. Should be required viewing in high school and college.
Published 8 days ago by Pamela Hosler
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Film that Fights Against "Dumbing Down" via Corporate Media...
The "hot coffee lawsuit" incident is a perfect example of how the truth is manipulated and re-fed to the masses for corporate gains. Read more
Published 26 days ago by Christa Hillhouse
4.0 out of 5 stars
The other side of torts
I assigned this for my graduate students who were amazed that there was another side to the issue of personal injury lawsuits and so called tort reform. Read more
Published 1 month ago by George G.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Slanted to produce a certain emotion
I wanted to watch this because I know one of the characters personally and thought it might be interesting. Read more
Published 1 month ago by arh6183
4.0 out of 5 stars
biased but informative
You won't find a balanced discussion of tort reform here but you will find a compelling case against it. Read more
Published 2 months ago by J. Caddell
5.0 out of 5 stars
I was SO wrong about this!
When I ordered this documentary through Netflix I thought it was going to be an expose of "frivolous lawsuits," a call to arms for Tort Reform. I was wrong! Read more
Published 2 months ago by Frank Kelly
5.0 out of 5 stars
Casts Light on a Heated Issue
Great production values, closely related but not repetitious topics, and the urgency of the material make this a scary, edifying documentary.
Published 2 months ago by wildbill
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great documentary
This documentary was very interesting and kept my eyes wide open through the whole thing. Make me think more about how I contribute to society and the importance of being well... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Allison
