Probably the most infamous example of the need for tort reform is the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. What most people don't know are some of the real facts behind the case (I scraped the following from http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/universalsoldierthereturn/73.html):

Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast-food restaurants. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.

Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds.

Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas. Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.

Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap causing third degree burns.

Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee.

Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's after they repeatedly refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.

Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future. They awarded $2.7 million.

Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.

Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.)

Fake stories about frivolous lawsuits have been floating since the Reagan administration. And don't forget the Bush (I) administration's Council for Civil Justice Reform (headed by the inimitable Dan Quayle). The Council produced a document titled "50 Point Agenda for Civil Justice Reform," which I had the honor to dissect on behalf of the law professor for whom I was a research assistant at the time. The so-called justifications for the proposed alterations to the civil justice system were wall-to-wall bullshit.

Marc Galanter is a law professor who's done decades of work on debunking the myths behind the various tort reform campaigns that have been launched in the last 2 decades. His articles are well worth reading.

damn strait.

a few months ago around oakland a number of billboards appeared saying "Lawsuits: The American Disease." funed by some group that sounded like "Americans for America"

I think that many people's only experience with lawsuits are the McDonald's cases advertized to them by businesses that would rather not pay for the injuries they cause. They don't even have to conspire.

David B:

The "McDonald's coffee" case is more repeated because it's one of the best examples of real need for tort reform.

your "facts":

1 - IMPOSSIBLE. The industry standard is 190 F, and water boils at 212 F, so 22 is the absolute max, and even that is essentially impossible, as pouring the coffee will reduce its temperature by a few degrees as it passes through the MUCH cooler air.

2 - Wrong again. "3rd degree" is when the nerves are killed. And please give evidence on your "under 3 seconds" claim.

3 - this has no relevance. It doesn't matter how many people hit their thumb with a hammer, it's not the hammer manufacturer's fault. This is the same.

4 - "The cup tipped over..." Aha! the REAL culprit! That cruel, malicious CUP! Um, hello? SHE spilled it ON HERSELF. It doesn't matter how (and not driving but in the passenger seat with it between her legs is only SLIGHTLY less dumb than doing so while driving).

5 - No relevance, as the injury was her own fault. (Also, this is probably misleading - the elderly need skin grafts MUCH more often than the general public in the case of burns).

6 - So? The shouldn't have had to reimburse her for her own mistake.

7 - So, the weak link is the jury. Again, this has no relevance on whether this was a travesty of justice or not.

8 - Of course they did. The legal environment had just changed underneath them (they would now be held responsible for other people's behaviour), and they took steps to reduce their liability. I don't have stats, but by anecdotal evidence among coffe-drinkers I know, fewer people now buy their coffee because of this. Again, how does this prove that the tort process is not broken?

9 - Oh gee, only 400,000 dollars for SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHAVIOUR! That makes it LESS HORRENDOUSLY BAD, not anywhere near OK.

If this is the poster child for "the system really ISN'T broken", you just proved that it IS.

The last person who attempted to discredit the true facts of the McDonald's example as not being sufficient to prove the Tort system isn't broken is wrong on the facts. He or she obviously needs to go back to college and study basic chemistry:

1. Water boils at 212 F. But Coffee is not water. Adding a solute such as coffee beans to the water raises the boiling point. Anyone who takes Chem 101 knows that. So it is entirely possible that the coffee was 40 degrees hotter than the industry standard of 190 F. You may look this up on the internet to verify, it's called the boiling point elevation of solutions over pure solvents.

2. The definition of a third degree burn does not necessarily include nerve damage. You can look this up anywhere on the Internet. And aside of that, I think it's sick to suggest that burning through the skin to the muscle isn't enough damage because no nerves were killed.

3. It absolutely matters how many people complained in the past. It bears on the issue of whether or not the injury was forseeable. For 700 people to take the time out and complain it means there are many more who don't complain. If the injury was forseeable, they should have tried to prevent it.

4. It is entirely the manufacturer's fault. The manufacturer created the risk by serving the hot coffee and so had a duty to make sure the customer was safe. They breached that duty by failing to reduce their temperatures and profits by a few cents a cup when they knew the probability was high (at least 700 complaints means there are far more people spilling coffee who don't complain) that the coffee would be spilled and the magnitude of the harm was great (third degree burns). But for the temperature of the coffee, the damage would not have occurred.

5. The hospitalization has alot of relevance. It means this isn't someone who sued because they spilled some hot coffee and said ouch. It means this is someone who was very seriously injured and was made to pay medical bills so McDonalds could make a few cents extra on the cup of coffee it sold her.

6. Yes they should have to reimburse her for her medical expenses you sick bastard. They should have to reimburse her for not caring enough to think that she should go through all hospitalization and skin grafts and surgery so they could make a few cents extra. And it also shows that this woman was not suing frivolously just to make money. She tried to avoid the Tort system at first, didn't want punitive damages or even compensation for pain and suffering. She only enough to cover her hospital bills. They could have settled the case for less than compensatory damages. It was their refusal to compensate her for her medical expenses that forced her to sue.

7. Juries are people like us. It means if you were sitting in that chair and saw the real case you would probably be pissed off and give 2.7 million too.

8. The fact that McDonalds reduced the temperature of their coffee the day after means that even after having damages reduced to $400,000, the additional profits they got per cup of coffee, those few cents extra, don't justify third degree burns in terms of a cost-benefit analysis to society. And your anecdotal evidence about fewer people drinking coffee is flat out wrong. They might be drinking less McDonald's coffee, but for statistics just look at the Starbucks Coffee tripling its profits.

9. The fact that the judge reduced the damages to $400,000 at McDonald's request is ridiculous. McDonalds willfully hurt people. It should be made to pay.