lino/ xom {Low) Persono/ kesponse #l

1he documenLary PoL Coffee ls a fllm LhaL follows Lhe sLory of four lndlvlduals wronged aL Lhe
hands of anoLher who depended on Lhe governmenL for !usLlce buL were noL served falrly lL looks aL
Lhe real facLs behlnd Lhe cases LhaL were presenLed and Lhe repercusslons LhaL each person wenL
Lhrough as a resulL of Lhelr case
5tello llebeck
1he case of Ms Llebeck began wlLh her purchase of a Mcuonald's coffee on lebruary 27
Lh
1992
ConLrary Lo popular bellef Ms Llebeck sued Mcuonalds afLer Lhey refused Lo pay for her exorblLanLly
hlgh medlcal bllls of $20000 and reduce Lhe LemperaLure of Lhelr coffee (1he 8eal" SLella 2011) 8uL
were Lhese accusaLlons agalnsL Mcuonald's coffee llable?
Accordlng Lo Lhe documenLary SLella Llebeck suffered Lhlrd
degree burns from Lhe coffee 1he uS Consumer roducL SafeLy
Commlsslon sLaLes LhaL mosL adulLs wlll suffer Lhlrd degree burns lf
exposed for Lwo seconds Lo waLer LhaL ls heaLed Lo 130 degrees (1ap
WaLer Scalds) 1he followlng ls a charL LhaL sLaLes Lhe oLher
clrcumsLances LhaL could lead Lo a Lhlrd degree burn (l8lu)
Mcuonalds hlred C'SLeen and Parrlson a law flrm Lo represenL Lhem ln courL ln an aLLempL Lo
flnd evldence Lo back up Lhelr argumenLs Lhe flrm senL ouL a law sLudenL uanny !arreLL Lo flnd Lhe
LemperaLure of coffee aL local resLauranLs and Lo compare Lhem wlLh Lhe LemperaLure of coffee aL
Mcuonalds lL was found LhaL Mcuonald's coffee had Lhe hlghesL LemperaLure 180 degrees and no
oLher resLauranL came closer Lhan abouL 20 degrees
Many people who were asked Lo share Lhelr oplnlon on Lhe case sLaLed LhaL Ms Llebecks
accusaLlons were a mere case of !ackpoL !usLlce" A Lerm used Lo refer Lo Lhe acL of a courL of law
rewardlng Lhe prosecuLlon wltb ootslzeJ joJqmeots ooteloteJ to octool Jomoqes (lrank 2008) SLella
1emperature 1|me
130 degrees 1wo seconds
140 degrees Slx seconds
130 degrees 1hlrLy seconds
120 degrees llve mlnuLes
Llebeck's accldenL was noL a !ackpoL !usLlce case as she suffered Lerrlbly aL Lhe hands of a Mcuonald's
coffee Per slLuaLlon was noL only made worse because of Lhe 30 degree lncrease ln LemperaLure of Lhe
coffee buL also because she was wearlng Lrack panLs 1he Lrack panLs absorbed Lhe coffee and Lhe heaL
and held lL close Lo her skln pracLlcally cooklng her Lhlgh and genlLal area (8enneLL 2008)
Was Lhls case leglLlmaLe? 1he vascular surgeon and Lhe many docLors LhaL analyzed Llebeck
afLer her arrlval aL Lhe hosplLal sLaLed LhaL tbe coffee boJ cooseJ tbltJJeqtee botos oo bet tblqbs
bottocks qeoltols ooJ qtolo oteo (PalLom McCann 2004) 1hey also sLaLed LhaL slxLeen percenL of
her body was permanenLly dlsflgured as a resulL of Lhe ln[urles peneLraLlng Lhrough her skln faL
muscles and some bone (l8lu) Accordlng Lo ur Arredondo a renowned surgeon who worked on
reconsLrucLlng Ms Llebeck's body Lhe burns LhaL she suffered were among Lhe worsL he had
encounLered ln Lhe hlsLory of hls pracLlce (l8lu) 1hls accldenL noL only lefL her dlsabled for Lhe nexL Lwo
years buL caused her exLreme amounLs of dlscomforL and was qulLe hazardous Lo her healLh (l8lu)
AfLer llsLenlng Lo all Lhe evldence bullL up behlnd Ms Llebeck's case lL seems Lo me LhaL lL ls
qulLe clear LhaL she deserved all Lhe money LhaL she collecLed Accordlng Lo 8enneLL Law as Lhe [ury
declded LhaL Lhe accldenL was 20 her faulL she collecLed 160000 dollars ln compensaLory damages
(hosplLal bllls) and 480000 dollars ln punlLlve damages (money awarded Lo punlsh Lhe defendanL)
(8enneLL 2008) She also helped Lo decrease Lhe Albuquerque Mcuonald's coffee LemperaLure Lo 138
degrees as well as launch masslve and conLroverslal changes Lo Lhe Amerlcan Law sysLem
WlLh Lhe success of Lhe Llebeck case companles were afrald LhaL oLher cases llke Lhe same
would sprlng up causlng a ma[or economlcal loss for Lhe sald companles 1hls ls where Lwo of Lhe mosL
lmporLanL changes ln laws came from



ops oo Noolecooloty uomoqes
A nonecunlary uamage ls Lhe legal phrase LhaL ls used Lo deflne a compensaLlon for paln or
sufferlng resulLlng from an accldenL (lnLenLlonal or nonlnLenLlonal) aL Lhe hands of anoLher (Magraken
2010) SLella Llebeck recelved 480000 dollars ln nonpecunlary damages because of Lhe sufferlng she
endured Accordlng Lo Lhe flles of C'sLeen and Parrlson Law llrm Mcuonald's lawyers dld noL belleve
LhaL a [ury would punlsh a company for maklng a hoL beverage hoL 1hey were nalve ln leLLlng go many
opporLunlLles Lo seLLle Lhls case ouLslde of Lhe courL When Lhe verdlcL flnally came ln favor of Llebeck
blg corporaLlons were LhreaLened and pushed for a LorLe reform
Cne of Lhe ma[or changes ln LorLe law was a cap on damages 1he currenL cap on nonpecunlary
damages as of 2010 ls approxlmaLely 330000 dollars and ls sub[ecL Lo change wlLh lnflammaLlon 1haL
means LhaL even lf Lhe !ury feels LhaL a vlcLlm deserves a cerLaln amounL of money above 330000
dollars Lhey would only be allowed Lo recelve 330000 dollars
Many people belleve LhaL Lhls amounL ls very llLLle and compleLely unfalr noL only ls lL
lmposslble Lo puL a value Lo Lhe paln and sufferlng of a person buL Lhe deflnlLlon of noneconomlcal
cosLs ls noL properly sLaLed and can cause confuslon 1hls was Lhe case wlLh Colln Courely whose
parenLs sued Lhelr docLor due Lo negllgence LhaL caused Lhelr son Lo be born wlLh cerebral palsy 1he
!ury awarded Lhe Courely famlly 36 mllllon dollars whlch was cuL down by 80 due Lo a sLaLe
mandaLed cap 1he Courely famlly recelved only 12 mllllon dollars (Coodman 2011) whlch only barely
flnance Colln's medlcal needs
Accordlng Lo 1he Cerebral alsy Source Lhe average amounL of money needed Lo flnance Lhe
medlcaLlon alone of a chlld wlLh cerebral palsy ls 921000 dollars 1hls amounL of money only lncludes
docLor vlslLs hosplLallzaLlon emergency room vlslLs medlcaLlons surgery rehablllLaLlon psychologlcal
counsellng and some asslsLlve devlces (CosL of cerebral 2003) 1hls does noL lnclude any non medlcal
cosLs such as home and vehlcle modlflcaLlons speclal educaLlon programs and any Lype of modlfled
moblllLy servlce (l8lu) Aslde from all Lhese dlrecL cosLs lndlrecL cosLs are also very expenslve 1hese
lnclude loss of wages loss of earnlng poLenLlal and paln and sufferlng (l8lu) Clearly Lhe 12 mllllon
dollars awarded Lo Lhe Courely famlly does noL compensaLe for all Lhese expenses as well as Lhe loss of
Lhelr son's full poLenLlal ls Lhls falr?
ln my oplnlon l belleve LhaL puLLlng a maxlmum on how much money a famlly can recelve ls noL
belng falr Lo all people noL only ls lL lmposslble for Lhe sLaLe Lo predlcL Lhe Lypes of cases LhaL may come
lnLo Lhe courL sysLem buL lL ls also lmposslble Lo puL a moneLary value on Lhe loss of a loved ones llfe
no amounL of money can glve Colln hls lndependence or a normal llfe and lf LhaL ls Lhe case Lhen how ls
lL posslble for Lhe sLaLe Lo puL a moneLary value leL alone a maxlmum Lo Lhe amounL of money awarded
Lo Lhe famlly?
l also belleve LhaL ln Canada a maxlmum on how much money a famlly can recelve due Lo non
economlcal damages makes much more sense as mosL Canadlan clLlzens have a healLh plan LhaL
provldes Lhem wlLh free medlcal care 1aklng ouL LhaL one expense can leave more money for Lhe
second parL of Lhe case paln and sufferlng Powever ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes medlcal care ls noL free and
Lherefore ln such cases as Lhe Courely famlly money for medlcal care ls mosL deflnlLely essenLlal
,ooJototy Atblttotloo oottocts
1he deflnlLlon of MandaLory ArblLraLlon ls Lhe use of an alLernaLlve approach Lo resolvlng lssues
LhaL does noL lnvolve Lhe courL sysLem Many companles lnclude ln Lhelr conLracLs a clause sLaLlng LhaL
any dlspuLe shall be deLermlned uslng an ouLslde source noL Lhe law sysLem whlch would be
handplcked by Lhe company lLself 1hls clearly means LhaL Lhe whole sysLem would be blased as Lhe
lawyers and [udge plcked for Lhe case would be pald for by Lhe company (ArblLraLlon ueflnlLlon 2011)
1hls became headllne news ln Canada as recenLly Canada's Supreme CourL of !usLlce dld noL
allow Lhe use of ArblLraLlon ln Lhe Mlchelle Seldel vs 1LLuS CommunlcaLlons case upon slgnlng a
conLracL wlLh 1LLuS for a cellularLelephone servlce Mlchelle Seldel found LhaL 1LLuS was charglng her
exLra for Llme LhaL she should noL have been charged as her phone had noL been connecLed Lo Lhe
cellular neLwork (Supreme CourL of 2009) Per maln argumenL agalnsL Lhls case ls Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhe
osloess ltoctlces ooJ oosomet ltotectloo Act (uolman 2011)
1he mere facL LhaL Canada dld noL allow Lhe MandaLory ArblLraLlon ConLracL Lo conLlnue seLs a
precedenL lL shows Lhe clLlzens of Canada LhaL Lhe governmenL would noL allow for a blased form of
confllcL resoluLlon Lo Lake place As well as lL shows oLher companles such as 8ogers Wlreless and uell
LhaL Lhls sorL of forced conLracL would noL be LoleraLed 1hls forces companles Lo ablde by Lhe law and
proLecLs Lhe rlghLs of clLlzens as Lhey conLlnue Lo purchase and use Lhese producLs and servlces
ln my oplnlon Canada learned from Lhe mlsLakes made ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes when perLalnlng Lo
Lhe case of !amle Lelgh !ones vs k88/PalllburLon Ms !ones was senL Lo lraq Lo work as a prlvaLe
conLracLor for k88/PalllburLon She was promlsed falr wages and a room wlLh Lwo oLher glrls Powever
when she arrlved aL her [ob she was puL lnLo a room wlLh approxlmaLely Len oLher male workers AfLer
emalllng Lhe head offlce Lwlce she was bruLally raped by her coworkers who were placed ln Lhe same
llvlng quarLers as her When she complalned Lo Lhe head of her deparLmenL she was placed ln a
shlpplng conLalner wlLh armed guards placed around her
When she Lrled Lo place crlmlnal charges on Lhe company and Lhe flreflghLer LhaL had led Lhe
gang rape on her she found LhaL she could noL as she had slgned away her rlghL Lo a falr [ury Lrlal when
she had slgned her work agreemenL She was only allowed Lo resolve her case aL a [udlclal courL and Lhe
medlcal evldence lncludlng a rape klL was kepL wlLh Lhe company LhaL had hlred her k88/PalllburLon
Many of Lhe key pleces of evldence from Lhe rape klL wenL mlsslng anoLher ma[or seLback ln her case
AfLer 13 monLhs of arblLraLlon Ms !ones wenL Lo Lhe federal courL and argued LhaL arblLraLlon should
noL be applled Lo cases of sexual harassmenL (Menclmer 2011) WlLh Lhe help of Lwo lmporLanL pollLlcal
leaders ln 2009 she was flnally glven her day ln courL Powever wlLhouL Lhe maln pleces of medlcal
evldence Lhere was no way of provlng her slde of Lhe case and she unforLunaLely losL
ln concluslon Lhe LorLe reform was a way for Lhe large corporaLlons and buslnesses Lo Lake
advanLage of Lhe clLlzens lL gave Lhem more power and lgnored Lhe rlghLs glven by Lhe consLlLuLlons of
Lhe Canadlan and Amerlcan reglons lL was wlse of Canada noL Lo follow ln Lhe fooLsLeps of Lhe unlLed
SLaLes as LorLe reform ls clearly un[usL and does noL help Lhe lnlLlal problem noL only have Lhere been
many cases LhaL prove LhaL Lhe LorLe reform was unnecessary buL lL seems LhaL lL defeaLs Lhe maln
purpose 1he maln purpose of lnlLlaLlng LorLe reform was Lo decrease Laxes however lL seems LhaL LorLe
reform merely lncreased Lhe Laxes of Lhe lndlvldual clLlzen and Lherefore defeaLlng Lhe purpose all
LogeLher
Jorks cited
1 (nd) 1ap waLer scalds (3098) 8eLrleved from webslLe
hLLp//wwwcpscgov/cpscpub/pubs/3098hLml
2 1he real sLella Lhe Lrue sLella awards (2011 !uly) 8eLrleved from
hLLp//wwwsLellaawardscom/sLellahLml
3 8enneLL A (2008) @be mcJooolJs coffee cose ooJ otbet mlsleoJloq ottocks oo tbe jostlce system
8eLrleved from hLLp//wwwbenneLLlawneL/pages/mcdonaldhLm
4 lrank 1 (2008) !ackpoL [usLlce geLs new meanlng dol Lxamlner
3 PalLom W McCann M (2004) ulstottloq tbe low polltlcs meJlo ooJ tbe lltlqotloo ctlsls
Chlcago 1he unlverslLy of Chlcago ress 8eLrleved from
hLLp//booksgoogleca/books?ld1CxlAo?kcZlCpgA186lpgA186dqwho was Lhe vascular
surgeon LhaL look aL LlebeckssourcebloLsml[go!WyCslg!xx72_7op6lu832d
3L8C8mZwhlenelLCxu1v_!ulxb0CPLr8lcuwsaxolbook_resulLcLresulLresnum2sql
2ved0CCcC6ALwAC
6 Magraken L (2010 March 14Lh) Cap on nonpeculnary damages ln canada 8eLrleved from
hLLp//bcln[urylawcom/blog/Lag/caponnonpecunlarydamageslncanada
7 Coodman A (2011) hoL coffee exposes how hard caps on malpracLlce awards shlfL burden on
Laxpayers 8eLrleved from
hLLp//wwwdemocracynoworg/2011/1/23/hard_caps_on_malpracLlce_awards_shlfL
8 ost of cetebtol polsy (2003) 8eLrleved from
hLLp//wwwcerebralpalsysourcecom/Legal_lnformaLlon/cosLcp/lndexhLml
9 Atblttotloo Jefloltloo (2011) 8eLrleved from hLLp//wwwhgorg/arblLraLlondeflnlLlonhLml
10 (2009) 5opteme coott of coooJo scc cose lofotmotloo (33134) 8eLrleved from webslLe
hLLp//wwwscccscgcca/casedossler/cmssgd/sumsomengaspx?cas33134
11 uolman ! (2011 March 23) oooJos sopteme coott ollows escope ftom mooJototy otblttotloo
8eLrleved from
hLLp//wwwbluemaumauorg/canadas_supreme_courL_allows_escape_arblLraLlon_clause
12 Menclmer S (2011) Why [amle lelgh [ones losL her kbr rape case 8eLrleved from
hLLp//moLher[onescom/pollLlcs/2011/07/kbrcouldwln[amlelelgh[onesrapeLrlal