Debunking Tort Reform Myths
The American Association for Justice has an excellent article discussing several myths that are commonly trotted out by large corporations and other business interests as reasons for "tort reform". The well-researched article provides excellent examples and statistics of why many of the tort reform "talking points" are simply not true, or mischaracterize the truth.
A classic example of this is when "tort reformers" cite the McDonald's hot coffee case as evidence of a typical "frivolous lawsuit". However, the actual FACTS of the case make it evident that the plaintiff's injury was quite serious.
Ms. Liebeck’s injuries include third degree burns—the most severe—to her groin, inner thighs, and buttocks. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).
Ms. Liebeck sought to settle her claim with McDonald’s for $20,000, but they refused. McDonald’s eventually produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1993, some involving third degree burns similar to Ms. Liebeck. This history documented McDonald’s knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. McDonald’s own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food served above 140 degrees; their coffee was kept warm at 185 degrees.
A jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, but reduced it to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent at fault for the spill. The jury also awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, equal to two days of McDonald’s coffee sales. This was eventually reduced to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald’s conduct reckless, callous, and willful. Jurors expressed similar sentiments in interviews after the trial. Ms. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually entered a post-verdict settlement.
