Extra Credit Law3800

.docx

School

Western Michigan University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3800

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by SuperHerringMaster268

Report
Extra Credit Project - Hot Coffee Film December 15, 2023 1. Names and Descriptions of the 4 Cases Examined in the Film ● Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1992): This is the central case explored in the film. Stella Liebeck sued McDonald's after she suffered severe burns from hot coffee purchased at a McDonald's drive-thru. The lawsuit gained widespread attention, and many misconceptions about the case circulated in the media. The film delves into the details of the incident, the trial, and the aftermath, challenging the common narrative and exploring the role of corporate responsibility. ● Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton/KBR (2005): Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, alleged that she was raped by coworkers while working in Iraq. The case brought attention to the issue of forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which can limit the ability of employees to take legal action. The film explores Jones' struggle for justice and the broader implications of mandatory arbitration in employment agreements. ● Colin Gourley (Nebraska, 2005): The film briefly examines the case of Colin Gourley, a Nebraska boy who suffered severe brain damage due to medical malpractice during childbirth. The documentary highlights the challenges faced by families seeking compensation for medical errors and the impact of damage caps on the amount of money awarded in such cases. ● Olszewski v. Scripps Health (California, 1970s):
The film touches on the case of Mary and Charles Olszewski, whose child was born with severe disabilities as a result of medical malpractice. The case illustrates the issue of "collateral source rule," where the jury may not be informed about insurance or other compensation received by the plaintiff from sources other than the defendant. The film uses this case to explore how legal rules can influence the perception of justice and the fairness of awards. 2. Agree or disagree with the final disposition of each of those 4 cases. I support the final outcome in Stella Liebeck's case, as I believe the jury's decision to award damages was justified. It is crucial for corporations, including fast-food chains, to be held accountable for ensuring the safety of their products. This accountability reinforces the importance of maintaining consumer safety standards and encourages responsible business practices within the industry. I hold a differing viewpoint on the final disposition, believing that Jamie Leigh Jones should have pursued justice through criminal proceedings rather than opting for a civil lawsuit. There is a concern that civil litigation in cases of alleged sexual assault might be perceived as susceptible to exploitation for financial gain. Emphasizing criminal proceedings may ensure a more comprehensive and objective examination of the accusations, promoting a fair and equitable resolution. I disagree with the final disposition because I believe that damage caps are essential to prevent undue financial strain on healthcare providers. While it is regrettable that the Gourley family encountered difficulties, limiting compensation in medical malpractice cases is necessary to sustain affordable healthcare. This measure helps curb the escalation of medical malpractice
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help