|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: Hot Coffee - The Folly of So-Called Tort Reform |
 |
|
Hot Coffee
'Hot Coffee' and the Scalding of the American Jury
| Quote: |
Hot Coffee is a worthwhile endeavor. It tells the other side of the story of "tort reform," the de-corporatized version, about plaintiffs who have lost out in the shuffle, victims not just of negligence or corporate wrongdoing but of the inapt and inept stewardship of their jury rights. As John Grisham suggests on camera during the movie, the truth is that civil justice already has been sold, in some cases lock, stock and gavel, to the highest corporate bidder. How this has happened, and why, is the story of this film.
. . .
So-called "tort reform" hurts the individual plaintiff and attorney from case to case, the documentary quickly reminds us through its storytelling. But those laws also diminish the authority of the American jury in every tort case by limiting the damage-award options available to it. The pro-business measures, now ubiquitous across America, take power out of the justice system and deliver it on a platter to the other branches of government. Hot Coffee makes this point, too. |
The frivolous lawsuit is quite the myth. The court already has a mechanism for culling out frivolous lawsuits, its called summary judgment. Even the infamous McDonald's Coffee case itself is widely misunderstood. Remember, tort lawyers are heavy contributors to the Democratic Party, whereas Defendant corporations are heavy contributors to the GOP. So this issue got politicized very quickly.
But I don't want to frame criticism of the legal profession as wholly unwelcome. There's a lot of failings. But it helps to get both sides of the debate. I haven't seen Hot Coffee, but its not the perfect documentary, apparently:
| Quote: |
But, chances are, if you are coming to this debate fresh, you'll find Hot Coffee a decent way to start a meaningful conversation about whether these so-called "reforms" are fair, just and appropriate in our civil litigation system. And at least, finally, you'll have both sides of the story.
I write "decent" instead of great because the documentary lacked a few critical elements. For example, the film should have addressed the legitimate questions raised over the past few decades by the conduct of the plaintiffs' bar. Such a critical analysis would have been particularly worthy coming from Saladoff herself, who surely can identify at least some of the ways in which trial lawyers have hurt their own cause over the years. To pretend that the problems of the tort system rest solely with corporations is as unfair and disingenuous as arguing that only plaintiffs and their lawyers are responsible for bad justice.
Another disappointment with the film is that Saladoff clearly tried to do too much at once. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I finally saw the film tonight. It was powerful. I don't agree with the following statement whatsoever:
| Quote: |
| To pretend that the problems of the tort system rest solely with corporations is as unfair and disingenuous as arguing that only plaintiffs and their lawyers are responsible for bad justice. |
Saladoff wasn't trying to immunize the tort system from reform in anyway. She specifically tackled four issues at the center of tort reform focused on four real controversies. She showed how powerful corporate interests were framing and abusing the concept of reform to foreclose the final branch where justice was available to American citizens. It was an informed and passionate defense of the jury system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Given my suspicion that money has the power to corrupt anything it touches, including and most importantly ethics and morals, I would like to see a system where money is not a factor in the adjudication of 'right and wrong'.
Call me naive if you will, but a sharp tongue does not guarantee in any way access to correctness. It just doesn't.
I'd like to see lawyers' fees reduced to the level of public school teachers' income, win, lose, or draw. We'd see a difference in the outcomes of trials. We'd see something closer to justice rather than a defense of the established power, which is what we have now.
It will never happen, but it should. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Given my suspicion that money has the power to corrupt anything it touches, including and most importantly ethics and morals, I would like to see a system where money is not a factor in the adjudication of 'right and wrong'.
Call me naive if you will, but a sharp tongue does not guarantee in any way access to correctness. It just doesn't.
I'd like to see lawyers' fees reduced to the level of public school teachers' income, win, lose, or draw. We'd see a difference in the outcomes of trials. We'd see something closer to justice rather than a defense of the established power, which is what we have now.
It will never happen, but it should. |
A reduction in punitive damages has meant a reduction in lawyer's fees for trial attorneys who work on contingency. But defense attorneys continue to make more and more money. All that tort reform has done is empower the corporations and defense bar. There has been no reduction in insurance costs or doctor malpractice costs since the implementation of tort reform in Texas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
