Fox President Of Alternative Programming Mike Darnell To … 
FIRST BOX OFFICE: ‘Fast & Furious 6′ Easy … 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
EXCLUSIVE: HBO has closed a deal for Hot Coffee, the Susan Saladoff-directed competition documentary which focuses on how corporations have used the memory of outlandish legal verdicts as a way to press for tort reforms and avoid jury trials through arbitration on cases that actually have merit.
HBO’s Sheila Nevins viewed the documentary after it premiered last Monday. I’m told the deal was mid to high six-figures. HBO licensed the film for broadcast and VOD for 2 years, and will afford the film a qualifying Oscar theatrical run before it airs on the pay channel. Preferred Content’s Kevin Iwashina brokered the sale. Carly Hugo and Alan Oxman produced with Saladoff.
The film’s title refers to the famous case of a woman”s million dollar judgment from McDonald’s over a spilled cup of coffee. Saladin, a lawyer, focuses on other outrageous cases that illustrated where corporations were negligent or unresponsive. They include a case involving Halliburton, which housed a 19-year old worker overseas in a barracks with men and ignored her concerns. She was gang-raped.
HBO had a busy Sundance, acquiring remake rights to turn the documentary Knuckle into a potential TV series with Rough House Productions, and making a preemptive acquisition of the docu Project Nim and then setting up theatrical distribution through Roadside Attractions.
Loading ...
At first I thought that the hot coffee lady case was a complete joke, but then I researched it and found out it actually had merit. The problem is, and it’s two-fold, A) It wasn’t McDonald’s fault but rather that of the morning manager who had the temp on the coffee machine up waaaaaaaaay beyond what it should have been, and B) she was awarded millions for what was essentially a burned lap. She should have gotten enough to cover all her medical bills, plus maybe 10-20 grand for her “suffering.” There is no justice in law firms getting rich off of cases like this, and because of that, I completely support tort reform. Speaking of that, when is someone going to make a docu about all the bs lawyers drag both plaintiff and defendant through endeavoring to get the highest settlement possible? These jackals profit off the pain and suffering of others, yet no one has had the stones to put the spotlight on them for a change. Why is that? Too afraid of being sued?
Indeed. And guess who pays for those crazy settlements? You and me.
Who pays for it? We don’t. The negligent corporation does, duh! If they didn’t, yes then you pay for it especially if the person doesn’t have health insurance, which many don’t. The verdict, before it was reduced and payed was “one day’s profits from the sales of coffee. So, it was enough to make mcdonald’s pay attention and have a baby ripple effect on the stock. That is who paid. If mcdonald’s tried to pass the cost of their screw ups along to the consumer, well, burger king and wendy’s here I come. Competition keeps that from happening.
So, it’s either make mcdonalds pay so as to force them to clean up the milk they spill, or we all pay (or screw the victim) and mcdonalds gets a free ride. Then mcdonalds would be like the doctors and hospitals who have liability caps. Yes we spill a gallon or two or three of milk and we always only have to clean up a quart. BP Oil here I come. WAKE UP AMERICA.
McDonalds knew what the manager was doing. If they say they didn’t, they certainly should have since over 700 prior burns on customers required medical attention.
The lawyer that handled the case tried to settle for the medical bills and McDonalds wouldn’t even pay for the medical bills. The lady injured had to have skin grafts for 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The coffee was more than just too hot.
This new movie details how big business manipulates Jury Verdicts in the United States to push for tort reform.
Tort reform takes away yours rights plain and simple, hard fought rights which have slowly been given to us over generations to care for the disadvantaged and injured among us. So who would be crazy enough to permit this? anyone who listens to the media and does not question the motives behind it.
The truth is if you buy insurance on your car home and business you pay for the covered risks. It is paid for now and after tort reform the risk is reduced, the payouts decrease but the premium usually does not and the insurance industry usually pockets the profit. That does not create jobs or make us more efficient it enriches the industry, example FL Insurance after Hurricanes spiked due to covered losses every carrier increased prices. No Hurricanes since 2005 premiums reduced accordingly? What are we paying for? PROFIT.
Ask yourself how can big business accomplish this reform, only through disinformation and voters making poor choices this film cuts through it if we open our collective eyes the truth is easy to visualize.
Wow. Never misunderestimate the power of ignorance. Obviously you didn’t research this situation at all.
A burned “lap?” How ’bout 3rd degree burns to her labia, requiring skin grafts…And McDonald’s own expert, who characterized the 700 people who had taken the time to write complaints to the corporation about its scalding hot coffee as statistically “trivial.”
A burned lap, indeed.
1) She had 3rd degree burns and needed skin grafts.
2) McDonald’s had 700 complaints about “hot coffee” prior to her case.
3) The holding temp for the coffee was 170 to 180 degress (go bathe in water that hot and see how it is).
Do some more research. The lady and her lawyer attempted to settle the case prior to trial for the unpaid medical expenses, which is memory serves, was somewhere between 23k and 30k. It was the corporation who refused to be accountable and because of that, they ended up getting popped.
Don’t blame the “greedy lawyers” the Plaintiff and her lawyer tried to do the right thing here.
Whose going to try cases in court of not lawyers? They have to make a living, just like the rest of the world.
“She was awarded millions for what was basically a burned lap”
Revise this to mean “She was awarded millions for third-degree burns to her groin and genitals: she sued for enough money to cover her hospitalization and skin grafts, but a jury awarded punitive damages amounting to two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee sales” and you’ll be closer to the truth.
she only asked McDonalds to cover her insurance gap, and they thumbed their noses at her, and acted like the architypal Corporation, and then pulling so much crap during the trial that the judge wanted them punished…badly from the sounds of what he said. you have to recognize that they lost for GOOD reason, and yet they have rallied the right to crack down on Tort…Poor peoples rights from long ago, before the Magna Carta, to be recognized. These are not frivolous law suits, these are people getting what they deserve, and we have been so mis-lead by the popular media and the corporations modern PR machines, that we really believe people who will have projected medical costs of 12 million over their or a relative’s lives, should have a cap on their award, and that insurance companies should win, and that bad doctor’s should be shielded like pedophile priests. You have been brain washed and you do not even realize it. See the movie you will be re-born. (and again, i’ve only seen clips, but i’ve watched Potter from Aetna, and see the manufacturing of consent as I look back. This is worse than subliminal advertising folks, we need to do something.
McDonald’s is responsible for the hot coffee because an employer is always responsible for the actions of its employees, that’s the way it works.
This move sounds great. I know some acquisitions folk who were at Sundance who pushed for this but their higher ups negged them on it. Big mistake. Now it will be on HBO and could even get an Oscar nom next year.
All she wanted from McDonalds was to cover her medical costs. They refused and she sued. The large jury verdict was reduced and they later settled out of court. She did not get millions, or even one million.
Wow this is what Sundance has to offer this year? What about “Marvel” or “Gawd Bless America”?
Cash, do some more research. Maybe actually watch the movie and understand what really happened to her. It is great news that HBO will be helping to get the real story out to the public.
Facts? What do they have to do with the current generation of so-called documentaries? Michael Moore has proofed that time-and-time again. Only reveal what works for your agenda.
We used to have Documentaries that tackled injustice, poverty, infringement of human rights and racism. Now we have agitprop disguised as a Documentary, made by a Trial Lawyer, and applauded by poseurs who adopt the gestures and mannerisms of the left. How ironic…and, given our consumerist culture’s extraordinary power of perversion, sadly appropriate.
I’m astounded by the continual attempts to re-invent the “Coffee” case as a fundamental blow for justice. Starting with the premise that a myth has taken hold, the response has been to create another myth. Yes, Ms Liebeck was badly scalded, but she was sitting in a pool of coffee for over 90 seconds. No, 180 to 190 Fahrenheit is not an unusual temperature for fresh coffee, a quick “Google” will lay that fallacy to rest.
Should Ms Liebeck have been awarded a reasonable amount, enough to cover her medical…perhaps. Should the current anti-tort reform crowd simply argue that this case is an outlier, not representative of litigation outcomes, and leave it at that…absolutely.
Perhaps Jules and Cash might watch the film, or, alternately the review of Hot Coffee by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. There is much more to the story than the two to seven days worth of coffee sales–that’s it for third degree burns leaving a lifelong injury she suffered until her death at 91–which McDonalds was made to pay prior to that amount being reduced due to tort limits. Wunnerful, wunnerful.
Glad to know I’m not the only one listening to Democracy Now!
documentaries are non-fiction films. they are directed by people with points of view, yes. that’s why some of them seem like agitprop while others are a snooze-fest. i’ve watched thousands of hours of documentaries in my career and the ones that are the most compelling are the ones that stir up debate. in my mind, it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with the filmmakers… if a documentary leaves you indifferent, i think it’s a failure. bravo to sheila nevins for continuing to be controversial
Jules: Scalded? Really? Since when are 3rd degree burns a scalding? A sibling of mine suffered 3rd degree burns and had to undergo skin-graft surgery.Excruciatingly painful surgery and the recovery is likewise unbelievably painful. And Cash’s comments are about as right wing/corporate/tort reform doctrinaire as one could view. Perhaps you both would consider seeing the movie? No doubt it would not change your views.
Cash & Jules, I have seen this documentary. It’s people like you that need to see this. You have been fed lies by large corporate interests and you have believed them. Your position is essentially that of a sheep being led to its own slaughter and supporting the slaughter along the way. Watch the movie and inform yourself.
And this film “tells” the truth? “fed lies by large corporate interests” completely reveals your position and willingness to be led to the “correct” conclusion.
I saw a portion of the film and it was compelling. The tort reform lobby distorted the facts of the case, distorted the severity of the injuries, distorted the indifference of the corporate defendant, and, finally, distorted the actual result. Why? So they could argue “tort reform” to the public. Why? So that the company that caused the harm and the insurance carrier that took premiums for the risk could limit their exposure to future lawsuits. And, take note, “money”: if the company that caused the harm and the insurance company that accepted the risk do not pay full damages, the taxpayer picks up the tab. And, yes, that means “you and me”. The only thing ” crazy” about this case is that some members of the public, against their own economic best interest, actually believe the garbage that corporate America is peddling. Shame, shame.
Jules and Cash, watch the film and see how you have been manipulated to believe that this was a frivolous case. I also challenge you and anyone else out there to tell us about all those other frivolous cases out there where someone got a pile of money they didn’t deserve
Please. Wait until you see the movie before you jump to any conclusions. The U.S.Chamber of Commerce, who represents the insurance industry, tobacco, Enron, AIG, and BP spends 60 million a year to pollute potential jurors and convince legislators there is a need for tort reform. Wake up America. The Chamber and Corporate Amercica are NOT your friends. They are working to take away your rights. Why don’t you get this? And when states have caps, like Nebraska has, who pays the future medical care? THE TAXPAYERS. So those who should pay for their wrongdoing are let off and the taxpayers foot the bill. Where is that fair? Where is the Tea Party to oppose this?
I am looking forward to seeing this movie. I will watch it with a skeptical eye since documentaries are rarely objective. They seem to have an agenda and present facts that support their beliefs rather than taking an objective view.
It seems to me that it is up to a business to determine the temperature of the coffee they serve. The soul of an entrepreneur dies every time those decisions are driven by politicians, lawyers, and insurance companies.
Regardless, the movie should be critiqued based on it’s quality rather than on the worthiness of the legal claim made by the lady with a lap full off coffee.
This kind of advocacy documentary really only works if close care is involved in the construction of the arguments. The opening argument about the famous McDonald’s case is persuasive. The woman sustained injuries which affected her for the rest of her life, the coffee was being held at a temperature which was demonstrably dangerous, and most damning, McDonald’s had around 700 similar complaints that they had previously ignored.
In the middle of the film, though, the evidence starts to become muddled and less compelling. By the time the film is appealing to the viewer’s emotions by attempting to demonize binding arbitration by equating it with a KBR case of gang rape and false imprisonment, the force of the logic has waned. The film ends with a feel-good, your-spirits-are-soaring-now song and a plea for the viewer to not fall victim to media manipulation on the subject. I’ll bite: it’s just a coincidence that the filmmaker, an attorney, would hate arbitration which takes money out of the pockets of lawyers, right?
Binding Arbitration doesn’t take money out of the pockets of the lawyers any more than it takes money out of the pockets of victims. Whether an award is made through arbitration or a jury trial, the lawyer still gets her percentage.
The point about arbitration is that it is a stacked deck. These binding arbitration contracts provide that the corporation gets to pick the arbitrators, who all work for a significant fee. Guess how long an arbitrator will get picked if he or she starts awarding significant, even justified, awards to plaintiffs?
This is about one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy. The jury trial, which is a guaranteed right in our Constitution, is a great equalizer of the small man versus the large company, and even the government.
I’m glad HBO picked this up. My congratulations to Susan Saladoff and her team.
This story was the basis for attempts at tort reform throughout the US, notably caps on medical malpractice. Caps only apply to guilty doctors, after 12 good people found they were negligent. Why should we allow a guilty doctor to get off paying what 12 people found is fair and reasonable compensation?
Tort reform? Puh-leez….. As I see it, society is clueless and I sincerely hope, will NEVER fully realize the impact this has on a family. 12 good people? In this case, yes; in my family’s case, no! I’m tired of people minimizing the impact tort reform has on a victim and a victim’s family/caregiver. The pain…..there are no words to describe the pain…..
I was always intrigued by the McDonald’s case……until my mother was killed during surgery. Caps on med mal? should be n/a. Yes, I’m off topic, to a degree….but I personally know “12 good people” who found for negligence …..for wrongful death; but came nowhere close to realizing how that impacted the family ….. unfortunately they were also unduly influenced by a defense atty who, in his attempt at manipulating a jury during voire diore (sp?), successfully threw in a $10,000 figure for pain and suffering, only to have the Plaintiff’s atty ignore that successfully planted seed… (WTF?!!)
Humor me as I continue off topic……I challenge anyone to find 12 “good people” who feel $10,000 comes anywhere near what a husband and his daughters endure when staring into their wife/mother’s eyes as she dies in front of you…..because two docs cut–on four separate occasions–four wrong vessels, while attempting to remove a kidney during a “routine” surgery. Ten thousand dollars comes nowhere close to an individual’s pain and suffering. I challenge anyone to ignore (let alone EVER FORGET) the look I saw as my mom stared at me while she died in front of me. Why is it jury’s seem to award lower dollar amts to penalize docs for killing?
Nothing comes close to compensating a victim (my mom), as she stared at me, her daughter, and as she stared at her husband, and her first born, knowing she was dying, and while taking her last breath….will ever compensate her pain, let alone her suffering. Where was the accountability for this? Unfortunately, monetary penalties are the only remedy for this. It sees inconsistent.
Oh wait, that’s right…..”they” said she wasn’t conscious…..even though she blinked at me when I asked her to blink if she could hear me……at 7:15 PM on 5/30…..and death cert indicates she died at 7:20……Let me say do not DARE tell me she didn’t see nor hear me…….she fucking blinked at me……oh wait…………….isn’t that hearsay or something?
Oh nevermind…I’m off to catch the rest of the Packer/Vikings blowout…
Melinda Hengel
So i already know all about the McD case. I want to know about this Halliburton case. I have never heard about it. And what is the angle with this case in this movie?
“millions for a burned lap.” truth is it was 3rd degree burns to an 80 year old woman’s crotch. You burn your crotch bc of someone else’s negligence and tell me what that’s worth. And all she wante were her medical bills paid and McDs refused. She didn’t want to sue but needed her meds paid.
When do you quit bashing trial lawyers?
When you need one. And in Texas you will be lucky to find one willing to take on any company. Tort reform has pretty much taken your tax dollars and paid for the court rooms and judges so corporations can use them. Not you.
People advocating for tort reform is a like chickens advocating for Colonel Sanders.
Cash simply operates without the facts. His emotional erroneous anecdotal mis-statements are the typical hyperbole the insurance industry corporations and Chamber of Commerce have been speciously promoting for many years. Hopefully the documentary will eventually drown out these voices of deception. Ed Walsh, Chgo.
Cash and money, you’ve been brainwashed. 12 of your peers decided, based on evidence presented in court, to order punitive damages against McDonalds. Who are you to question the merits of such a decision? Can’t you see arguing for see tort reform is arguing against your own potential interest? This movie deserves to be watched by more than only HBO subscribers.
Using your failed logic, we should not have questioned the verdict in the first OJ Simpson trial.
Kate, ironic how the second verdict against OJ took place in civil court, isn’t it? If you have a problem with the basic setup of our justice system, then best of luck to you the next time someone harms you or sue you.
No one who sees this film would minimize the pain and suffering that was needlessly inflicted upon this poor woman. We should all be thankful that she and her family were willing to step forward and tell their story. It could not have been easy.
I pray for the day when prospective jurors will refer to the “McDonald’s coffee verdict” as a story about outrageous corporate conduct and a sad tale of how our civil justice system has been tainted through a calculated disinformation campaign.
I’m tired of hearing about “greedy” trial lawyers. Every profession has greedy individuals. Doctors, accountants, insuance salesmen, bankers, stockbrokers, etc. Most trial lawyers are some of the most philanthropic individuals you will meet.
Additionally, I’m not going to apologize for any contingent fee I EARN. We do not take a dime from our clients, and we invest our own money and SIGNIFICANT time in our cases. Don’t tell me how greedy I am when I’m in my office working for my clients this last Saturday and Sunday.
The next time you talk about greedy trial attorneys, go spend a few days with one. Or, take a look at what some of our clients have said about our work on our website. You have no clue what you are talking about when you make that statement!
As a Plaintiff paralegal, I totally agree with you, John. We work our butts off on cases, and the attys front thousands of dollars in costs that clients do not have. And often when the day is finished, when you compare the fee to the number of hours spent working on the case — it does not add up to very much. There are many very good attys out there who are nothing even close to greedy and I am always bothered by that characterization as well.
Thank you. I also thank my dad’s attorneys for their tireless efforts at advocating for him and for my family when my mother, my father, me and my sister became victims of medical malpractice. Unfortunately, med mal is one area where juries are reluctant to find agains docs. Why is that? I truly believe it is not from lack of you and others willing to go to bat for victims like my mother, me and my family. Can I go on record saying thank you for your expertise, empathy and compassion? There really are many of us who owe you and others like you a debt of gratitude. If I may speak for many, on behalf of many, thank you, sir.
Melinda Hengel
It is odd that “cash” and “money” are the two posters here supporting the insurance industry and Chamber of Commerce position. There have been some studies done showing that often times posters like this are actually paid by industry PR firms and industry directly. People are paid to browse these comment boards and post controversial and ad hominem attacks just to derail the conversation. Most Americans have a lot more in common and share a lot more common ideals that these industries want us to believe. It is no accident that 12 jurors reached the conclusion they did, while the newspaper accounts and on the street recitals leave the rest of the public with the wrong impression.
We never hear about the outrageous $0 verdicts.
Too often, people with meritorious cases:(1) cannot find a GOOD lawyer to take their case; (2) the defendant crushes a person by outspending; or (3) jurors get confused.
When conducting “mock jury trials,” sometimes the two different groups who see the identical presentation at the same time with the same instructions come up with completely different results. With real-life juries, the same thing can happen and a person with a devastating, life-changing injury can get $0. Then, taxpayers – instead of wrongdoers – often end up footing the bill for necessary care.