It was almost 20 years ago that Wyoming media was abuzz over the ‘hot coffee case." An elderly woman was awarded millions after suffering third-degree burns when a McDonald’s coffee spilled in her lap. While there were many jokes about it, a new documentary premiering this Monday on H-B-O shows how it was no laughing matter for the woman involved, or for any consumer. “Hot Coffee” director Susan Saladoff connects how misinformation spread about the case contributed to the rise of forced arbitration clauses and tort reform.
When Wyomingites use a credit card, sign up for a cell phone, or place a loved one in a nursing home – the fine print contains an “arbitration clause.” That means the right to take a company to court for wrongdoing, injuries or death is waived. The clauses are promoted as a way to keep prices low for consumers and protect against frivolous lawsuits – with the hot coffee case often cited as a frivolous suit.
Attorney Bryan Ulmer with the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association saw the documentary at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year. He says the reactions in the audience were notable when photos of the woman’s injuries were shown, and when the dots were connected between distorted information about the case and the campaign to limit consumer court rights.
Saladoff has been criticized as not being objective enough while making the documentary. She was an attorney for 20 years
When Wyomingites use a credit card, sign up for a cell phone, or place a loved one in a nursing home – the fine print contains an “arbitration clause.” That means the right to take a company to court for wrongdoing, injuries or death is waived. The clauses are promoted as a way to keep prices low for consumers and protect against frivolous lawsuits – with the hot coffee case often cited as a frivolous suit.
Attorney Bryan Ulmer with the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association saw the documentary at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year. He says the reactions in the audience were notable when photos of the woman’s injuries were shown, and when the dots were connected between distorted information about the case and the campaign to limit consumer court rights.
Saladoff has been criticized as not being objective enough while making the documentary. She was an attorney for 20 years
No comments:
Post a Comment