How The Tort Reform Has Impacted Individuals ' Constitutional And Civil Rights

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

Tort reform is the attempt to improve the tort law, which is a civil wrong that unreasonably causes another individual to suffer harm or loss resulting in legal liability for the individual who commits the unjust act. It has been occurring since the 1900s, where certain people, such as wealthy defendants and insurance companies, disliked the idea that people were receiving a limitless amount of money using the tort law. So, many interest groups, lobbyist groups, and PACs (political action committees) took control over reforming the tort law in attempt to achieve the goal of reducing the amount of money defendants would have to pay by putting caps on damages. In this way, large insurance companies and other corporations and groups have

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, aged 79 at the time, bought a coffee from the drive-thru of a McDonald’s in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She spilled the coffee on herself and received third-degree (full thickness) burns. She sued McDonald’s and was originally awarded almost $3 million in damages. This case is a perfect example of frivolous litigation and is one of the reasons some Americans think there needs to be civil justice reform.

The court didn’t approve summary judgment for product liability claims because the Nadel’s failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at 175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second-degree burns. The articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have no value as evidence.

In the United States justice system, a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be traced back to the initial trespass of property or person, but it was not until the 18th century that the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). In recent years, tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in tort costs, insurance liability costs, and the number of frivolous lawsuits made. This scrutiny has lead to the creation of tort reform. Tort reform is a movement to reshape the way consumers can access the courts by restricting their right to sue and

Tort reform concerns constructing modifications to the tort law that place caps on the amount individuals can claim when filing a lawsuit. The lawsuits that can be filed are personal injuries, medical malpractice, car accidents, and defective products.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, “The tort system is truly broken and in bad need of repair.” Tort cases are becoming an extremely common fight in the nation’s legal system. Since 1986, 38 of the 50 United States have adopted some sort of tort reform. However, with the many flaws of the tort system today, the suffering American economy will continue to fall behind if the American public does not insist on fighting for justice in the legal system. The governing bodies of these states must continue to seek reform and propose strategies to fix the corruption in the tort system. The legal system set up by the founding fathers will experience corruption in the negligence of these governing bodies. Tort

This is just one lawsuit out of a few that the coffee giant is being accused of. Others include cold drinks and the amount of ice to coffee ratio.

Tort reform aims to accomplish this goal. Tort reform represents suggested changes in the civil justice system that intend to limit the capacity of tort litigation that victims can bring to court. Specifically,

The story of one of the most famous worker’s compensation cases, Karen Silkwood vs. Kerr-McGee, was the inspiration for hundreds of articles, several books, televisions shows, and a movie.

Next, Mr. Morgan "then filed a formal complaint in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in New Mexico alleging that the coffee was defective because it was excessively, dangerously hot, and because adequate warnings were not provided regarding the risks of the coffee at that temperature" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 348). It is essential to recognize that "the claim was based on products liability law, specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code, alleging breach of warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). "The complaint requested compensatory and punitive damages (on the grounds that McDonald's exhibited reckless indifference in selling the coffee)" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Once Mr. Morgan set the date for the trial, he attempted to settle with McDonald's for $300,000, but the company refused the offer (Hartigan et al., 2014, p. 349). Shortly before the trial, the judge ordered that mediation be used in an attempt to resolve the case. "The mediator recommended a settlement of $225,000, McDonald's refused, and the case went to trial" (Hartigan et al., 2014, p.

This case is by no means easy to judge or come to a conclusion. A large portion of the award was due to pain and suffering. It is a bit difficult to fully understand the high payout and how the amount was deemed appropriate. It is very difficult to assess a sum for spilled coffee. The jury really considered the time it took to recover and not to mention her treatment expenses. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Liebeck wanted to initially settle out of court for 20,000 dollars, which McDonalds refused. Refusing to settle out of court opened the doors to litigation and ultimately cost McDonalds in this case.

Because the practice of defensive medicine is driven primarily by the threat of legal liability, researchers have proposed direct or indirect tort law reforms as the solution. With caps on non-economic damages and “collateral source offsets”, direct reforms seek to limit the cost of malpractice litigation for providers (Kessler, 2011, p. 96). Indirect reforms seek to alleviate malpractice pressure through other means, including contingency fee limitations, periodic payment requirements against future damages, joint and several liability reforms, and provisions for patients’ compensation funds (Kessler, 2011). The potential of such reforms to curtail defensive medicine is based on the assumption that reduced

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.