The story of the New Mexico woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald's was widely viewed as the stuff of comedy, but it turns out that the story goes way beyond that. Using bumper sticker phrases like "tort reform" -- often conceived by the likes of Frank Luntz and Karl Rove -- the special interests sensationalized stories of "frivolous lawsuits" and convinced state legislatures to make it harder to sue, while also placing caps on damages, installing business-friendly judges, and often creating mandatory arbitration (signing away your right to sue).

Susan Saladoff's documentary "Hot Coffee" looks at these issues. Saladoff organizes it like Michael Moore's documentaries (interviews with the subjects interspersed with cultural icons). Among other things, people often voted for tort reform without realizing that they were the ones getting screwed. Not only that, people often don't even know what a tort is.

The point is that our justice system has gotten completely manipulated. See if you don't feel a chill run down your back while watching this.

How the infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonalds) and similar cases were exploited as part of a right wing crusade to weaken civil justice.

First of all, and most importantly, this documentary clears up people's misunderstandings about the original incident and subsequent court case: we get to see nasty images, and hear of temperatures up to 190 degrees (almost boiling). By explaining the final outcome, we get a sense of the poor media portrayal of how the award process works. Despite how common knowledge sees it, this was not a "frivolous" lawsuit (although the judge was correct in reducing the jury award).

We then see how this helped the cause and the rise of tort reform, a generally pro-business issue. More than any other case, Liebeck was the driving force that helped Rep. John Kasich of Ohio (later a governor),and I was not aware how many times President Bush had brought up the issue in various state of the union addresses (and elsewhere).

The film goes off on some tangent issues, related in a contingent sense. We learn of Judge Oliver Diaz, which was possibly off-topic, but an interesting story in itself. He was targeted for his views opposing tort reform, and later had two criminal cases brought against him -- seemingly unfairly, as he was acquitted both times. It ruined his career.

It was odd seeing Al Franken as a senator helping citizens after meeting him as a comedian. And how "mandatory arbitration" connects to "tort reform" is debatable...

Although I think the film as a whole is fair and they make many good points (again, the best one being to clear up the misinformation on Liebeck),I am hesitant to give it a full endorsement. There seems to be very little attempt to get the point of view of the pro-reform folks. Even if the filmmakers think these people are wrong, it does not help the debate by cutting them out of the story.

"Hot Coffee" is a film seeking equal time to explain the famous McDonald's coffee lawsuit. Information that public wasn't aware of is given in the film and the case isn't quite as simple as TV reported. But what they can't refute is that the original jury award was $2.9 million--an amount that STILL seems huge to me--though her injuries they showed in the film were pretty bad.

Following this discussion, the rest of the film also explores lawsuit caps, cases where media reports are dead wrong and are only intended to illustrate a need for tort reform (such as the totally bogus lawnmower hedge-trimming case that never actually occurred though it was reported as fact).

"Hot Coffee" is an interesting film but it's also one that has a very strong bias in favor of lawsuits. It gives lot of examples of legitimate lawsuits, damage caps and exaggerated cases that were reported in the media--and all this is true. But, the tort reform side can report the exact opposite--illegitimate lawsuits, ridiculously high jury awards and exaggerated cases that were reported by the media. As a result, I strongly caution LET THE VIEWER BEWARE. If anyone seriously says there is no need for lawsuit reform or that corporations are always right, then they are either out of their mind or simply cannot be trusted.

This pro-lawsuit film doesn't seem to acknowledge ANY cases where oversight or abuses have occurred or the long-term cost on everyone (they just dismiss this and say suits DON'T increase costs--which just makes no sense). Doctors unfortunately DO make mistakes--and I felt for the family in the film. But repeated lawsuits have forced too many good doctors out of business--with many obstetricians abandoning their specialization. And, such unwanted and unexpected problems such as the shutting down of playgrounds, prisoners suing EVERYONE (including their victims) because they can, disbanding of little leagues and the like due to super-high insurance rates aren't discussed as well.

Now I am not some big-business hack. I know that despite too many lawsuits, big corporations can buy still justice and have armies of lawyers and practically unlimited funds at their disposal. And, like the pro-lawsuit side, they, too, have their own hired experts who are paid to claim what's in their best interests.

By the way, I checked and the consensus across internet sites devoted to coffee making seemed to indicate that the optimal temperature for coffee to be brewed is between 180-190 degrees. The public has shown the preference for this temperature and won't buy significantly colder temperatures. And, incidentally, this is the SAME temperature (190 degrees) as the coffee that spilled on this poor old lady's lap. Yes, the temperature we all want will cause horrible burns in some situations--so be careful!

Overall, a well-written and constructed film--but a film whose message is heavily one-sided. I would REALLY like to see a film that looks at both sides of the issue--thus providing a much more objective look at lawsuits in America today.

By the way, one thing the film did made me irritated. While the Chamber of Commerce and corporations do pour huge amounts of money into campaigns, it does NOT point out that trial lawyers and their organizations do the same. And, MOST politicians are lawyers--and some very famous ones have been trial lawyers (such as John Edwards),so the REAL story is much less black & white than the film portrays it to be.