Frivolous Law Case Study

This case is extremely relevant to what is known as the four D’s of negligence; duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages. Duty is when a doctor and a patient have formed a relationship and said doctor has taken on the responsibility of taking care of the patient. Dereliction or failure to perform a duty, there must be some kind of proof that the doctor somehow neglected the doctor neglected the patient. Direct cause, there must be some kind of proof that what happened to the patient was a direct cause of how the doctor conducted himself or his failure to act which resulted in injury. Damages a patient must prove that harm was incurred by the direct result of the physicians actions.

Another basic requirement of a medical malpractice claim is whether or not the doctor's negligence caused the injury. Many malpractice cases involve patients that were already

The doctor had a duty to treat the patient. This legal duty is established if the healthcare provider agrees to treat the patient. This must be established, as a doctor providing emergency care in a public place may not be guilty of malpractice.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

damages. In order to obtain a judgment of negligence against a doctor the patient has to be able

The tort law can be traced back to the late 1500s when ancient Roman law contained rules for torts, also known as wrongful acts, that later influenced the rest of Europe in regards to civil law jurisdictions. People have been suing over torts since the beginning of time and there has not been a limit to how much money the defendant could be sued for, that is for damages. It wasn’t until large businesses decided to change the tort law to satisfy and financially help themselves. With the change that they proposed, people’s rights are still at risk and are being taken advantage of, because many are uninformed of how such corporations are abusing the civil justice system.

Growing up, I had heard of the McDonald’s hot coffee case, but in different contexts. At the time, I was fairly certain that I understood the circumstances of the frivolous case and the jokes that came along with it. Through watching Hot Coffee and gaining exposure to accurate case details, I realized that the image I had in my head was entirely incorrect. By viewing Stella Libeck’s own account of the incident, seeing pictures of the unimaginably painful burns, and learning about how McDonald’s brewed its coffee at very high temperatures, I now understand how much something can be distorted through media and hearsay. After this revelation, I also understand how it can be difficult to ensure that jurors have no prior opinions/exposure to the case, especially when a case can become so publicly known, like in the case of McDonald’s hot coffee or the OJ Simpson trial. I also learned that the publication of torts to encourage tort reform can influence public perception of a case.

On this film it is showcased through several different cases how the tort reform has impacted individuals’ constitutional and civil rights. It also showcases how large companies and political leaders have used their power for their own purposes as well as to push legislature to pass through the White House and become law by financing their campaigns and helping the candidates to win elections. One of those laws was the caps on punitive damages through tort reform.

In 2008, Senator John McCain made a claim for tort reforms by saying he wanted to pass them “to eliminate frivolous lawsuits (Quinn).” However, are all law suits frivolous? Is every

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.

One approach to minimize large amounts of tort claims for medical malpractice is to put a cap on non-economical awards. Tort reform is the response; a tort is a civil lawsuit for damages over private wrongs other than breach of contract. According to Lau and Johnson (2014), a tort can be categorized into three categories: intentional tort, when tortfeasor acted with intent, negligence, if the tortfeasor did not act intentionally, but failed to act as a reasonable person, and lastly, strict liability, if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities, which caused injury or death due to it. The massive medical malpractice cases across the nation have made defending frivolous lawsuits is a national problem; ultimately, the general public

Medical ethics and legal issues have been a key topic in medical field for many years now. It is important for medical professionals to understand the importance of the way we care for patients, it is therefore important to be knowledgeable and aware of the medical ethics and legal issues that govern good patient care. Health care professionals must make decisions based on ethical and legal issues to performance their regular duties. However, Medical ethics is not only about avoiding harm to patients. It is rather a norms, values and principles (Ethical theories 2015). Therefore norms, values and principles are intended to govern medical ethical conduct. Ethics is defined as “a standard of behaviour and a concept of right and wrong beyond what the legal consideration is in any given situation”. In another words medical ethics is a discipline that used to handle moral problems coming out the care of patients. Law is another important discipline that often comes together with medical ethics. Law defined as a “rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority”. Government imply law to keep the society running smoothly and to control behaviour that could threaten public safety. Medical professionals have to often prioritise these terms before making any clinical decision. The following findings will constructively emphasise on medical ethics, its

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.

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.

Negligence happens when a “person’s actions fall below a certain level of care. Negligence can involve doing something carelessly or failing to do something that should have been done.” (Fremgen, 2009, p. 35). In order to prove negligence the plaintiff must present the following elements: 1) duty to care, 2) breach of duty to care, 3) injury and 4) causation (Pozgar, 2012, p. 33). Duty to care is the first element which deals with the care that the defendant (physician) owes the plaintiff (the patient).