Hot Coffee, Anyone?

Many believe that personal injury lawsuits are frivolous. It is a common stereotype that people exaggerate their personal injury claims to get huge settlements. The McDonald’s hot coffee case is used by those in favor of tort reform as the prime example of this so-called problem. This myth was recently addressed by the Utah Supreme Court in the Boyle v. Christensen case.

In this lawsuit, John Boyle, a former professional golfer, was hit by a car driven by Kerry Christensen, while crossing in the cross walk. Boyle had to have back surgeries that impaired his ability to lift things or play golf and sued for $370,000 in damages. When the closing argument was given by Christensen’s lawyer, she stated:

It's a per diem analysis. How many days has it been since the accident? How many days for the rest of his life? And how much per day is that worth? That's what's been done here. That's how we get verdicts like in the McDonald's case with a cup of coffee.

Mr. Boyle’s Counsel, Karra Porter, objected to this statement believing it trivialized the damages that her client sustained. The judge overruled the objection and allowed the defense to continue.

I am sure that almost everybody has heard about the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case. We have all seen the Seinfeld episode where Kramer sues Starbucks after spilling coffee on himself through his own silly actions. The case is a fixture in pop culture as a lawsuit that was pointless.

People often get confused with the McDonald’s Hot Coffee case and think that it was a frivolous lawsuit about an unremarkable woman who sued McDonalds over some minor burns and got a big verdict. In reality this case was misconstrued, some might even say deliberately.

What really happened was Stella Liebeck went through a McDonald’s drive-through as a passenger in her grandson’s car. She put the coffee between her legs and removed the cover so she could add cream and sugar when the car was not in motion, and hot coffee spilled all over her lap. It is important to note: this coffee was not just hot, it was scalding (180-190 degrees Fahrenheit to be exact). This caused third degree burns, capable of burning through flesh, on her thighs, buttocks, genital and groin areas. She was physically disabled for two years and had to undergo skin grafting and other treatments.

The evidence in the court case was strongly in favor of Stella Liebeck. McDonalds had known about over 700 claims that were burned by the coffee in a ten year period. McDonalds also claimed to keep their coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain flavor, however, experts testified that burn hazards existed with liquids 140 degrees or higher and that liquids at 180 degrees will cause third degree burns between 2 to 7 seconds. McDonalds even argued that their customers expected their coffee to be that hot and that their customers would not be drinking the coffee in their car but at home, giving it time to cool down; McDonald’s own marketing research showed that customers want to drink their coffee immediately.

At the end of the trial the judge upheld the jury’s finding of liability and even called McDonald’s actions “callous”. The judge denied McDonalds' motion for a new trial.(Article). Just this past year at the Sundance Film Festival, a documentary called "Hot Coffee" was released that explains the real story behind the McDonald’s lawsuit myth.

This brings us back to the Boyle v. Christensen case. The Defense played off of the passions of the jurors by referring to a case that is commonly misconstrued to be the height of frivolous lawsuits, and compared it to Boyle’s case in an attempt to reduce the verdict. If this objection had been sustained, it is likely Mr. Boyle would have been more fairly awarded damages for his serious, and very real, injuries.

Top Reasons Why You Should NEVER EVER Sign an Arbitration Agreement

It’s happened to all of us; we walk into a doctor’s office, talk to the receptionist, get out our insurance card and fill out some paper work, then she asks: “do you want to sign an arbitration agreement?” She may even pressure you or try to persuade you to do it. It is really easy to just say yes and scribble your signature on the paper and not have to deal with it ever again, but your answer should always be NO.

Now, for those of you who do not know what an arbitration agreement is, here is a brief explanation: it is when you agree in advance that, if something goes wrong with your treatment, your case does not go to court or in front of a jury. In arbitration, your case is heard and decided by a panel of one to three attorneys, who act in the place of a Judge and a jury. Arbitration is promoted as being faster, cheaper and more convenient than going through standard legal procedures. This can sometimes be true. However, it is NEVER in your best interest to sign an arbitration agreement. The only people that arbitration benefits are larger entities like businesses and doctor’s offices. Here’s why:

1. You Can Enter into Arbitration at Any Time. Once you sign an arbitration agreement, you are bound to litigate your case through arbitration. However, parties can enter into an arbitration agreement at any time, even after a lawsuit is filed. Binding yourself to an arbitration agreement before any malpractice has occurred just limits your options.

2. Arbitration Is Binding and Almost Impossible to Overturn. This is one of the biggest reasons that you should not sign an arbitration agreement. If you get a result from your case that is unfavorable, you generally cannot appeal it to the Courts. Arbitration decisions are mandatory and binding, and it is next to impossible to get them overturned.

3. The Notion That Arbitration Is Cheaper than Litigating in Court Is A Myth. You are required to pay for your own arbitrator, as well as for half of the bill of the “neutral” presiding arbitrator. These are experienced lawyers, who often charge upwards of $300/hour. Although you do have to pay a small filing fee to proceed in a Court action, you do not have to pay for the Judge’s time or for the jury.

4. Arbitration Is Not Necessarily Faster. There can be backlog in the Courts that can cause delay in getting a trial date. However, most federal judges and many state judges will give you a trial date when you first file the case. Also in Court you always have a scheduling order in place that is overseen by the Judge, which lays out deadlines for completing each stage of the case. Arbitration is often more casual, and it can be difficult to get the defense to stick to a schedule and keep the case moving.

5. There Is Always A Chance for Bias to Affect Arbitration. Arbitrators, while they try to remain neutral, can be subject to pressure from stronger and wealthier parties who have the representation of a larger, stronger law firm. When the Arbitrator is dependent on a corporation or big firm for repeat business, they may be influenced to rule in favor of them.

Now, you might be really worried if you have already signed and arbitration agreement. Or maybe you aren’t sure if one of the papers you signed at the doctor’s office binds you to arbitration. If so, all is not lost; you can always send a notice in writing to your medical provider or doctor’s office and have any existing arbitration agreements revoked.

Remember: no one can refuse you medical treatment because you have not signed an arbitration agreement.

SykesInjuryLaw.com

A Thin Blue Line

Many of you may have heard of one of our civil rights cases in the news recently, the trial of Medina v. Cardon case. In this case our client, Cesar Medina, was pulled over by officer Jared Cardon of the West Valley Police Department and threw our client to the ground for no discernable reason, violating his civil rights.

The incident was recorded on the officer’s dashboard camera and the footage has been on the local news channels and has been covered by local newspapers. The comments flooding the message boards of these news websites (CBS 2 and Fox 13 for example) have been overwhelming. We have noticed that there were big debates on the message boards about who was right and who was wrong, many people had already made up their mind based on how the story made them feel. What is important to remember is that only the jurors were there to view all of the evidence presented and they were the only ones who could make a judgment. It is also important to remember that both the plaintiff and the defendant have the right to a fair trial by an unbiased jury.

When the jurors went into deliberation there were five people who were in favor of our client, Cesar Medina, four people in favor of Officer Cardon and three people who did not know how they felt by the end of the trial. Three of the people on the jury were very pro-police to begin with. As you can imagine jurors with their minds made up about a case can completely alter the outcome of a verdict.

It is natural for us to want to side with the police, many of us feel like we can and should trust them. This is a pretty rational thought, they are paid to protect us and the vast majority of police officers do a pretty dang good job of it – this is not to say that some good police officers don’t slip up occasionally, but the majority of police officers are good people. Unfortunately, there is a small minority of police officers who consistently do not follow the rules set in place that keep us safe from the police themselves.

The jurors described deliberation as six hours of yelling and fighting; this was a tough matter to debate. One juror even cried, she wanted so badly to believe that Officer Cardon was telling the truth, but she could not. In fact, the jurors we interviewed also said that no one on the jury believed that Medina was guilty of the 12+ violations that he was accused of and no one really felt like there was a delay on the dash camera, they felt like Officer Cardon’s testimony was inconsistent and filled with falsehoods.

One comment in particular caught our eye on the Salt Lake Tribune message board:

The real problem here is the precedent that this ruling sets. I myself am a law student and I was pulled over just last November by a cop who asked irrelevant questions which he did not have the authority to ask and he actually assaulted me for being "non compliant" when I refused to answer the questions. As a law student I knew right away that his behavior violated my rights, unfortunately I made the mistake of telling him so and he didn't like that one bit. This happens far more often than we think, and it is wrong.

"As citizens we all have certain constitutional rights, which are often violated by the police. I understand that these situations are the exception and that there are many of officers out there who don't engage in this improper conduct but unfortunately there are some that do. It is up to us to hold these officers accountable for this reprehensible conduct.

"Once again a jury has decided to permit this kind of conduct as opposed to holding an officer accountable for his abusive conduct. Once again officers have the authority to engage in abusive conduct while the court systems look the other way. Some officers will continue to engage in abusive conduct. Thank goodness that Medina's situation only involved minor damages but next time the consequence may be an innocent person's death. The video is proof of brutality and any rational person can watch it and see that Officer Cardon was out of line. I hope that in the years to come juries and judges decide to pursue accountability as opposed to looking the other way. And I hope innocent lives aren't lost as we wait for this day." -Law_Chick

Law_Chick brings up an excellent point, a jury has let an individual get away with his abusive conduct. In the end, the jury slowly peeled off one by one in favor of officer Cardon. Even though several of the jurors felt that Officer Cardon’s conduct was way out of line and that he could have handled it with greater finesse, they sided with him because they felt like the use of force fell into his job description.

One of the complaints that we often hear about this case is that there were so few damages (which as Law_Chick pointed out could have been much worse). The real damage in this case was not done in bodily harm; it was done to the United States Constitution. In cases like this, we need to stand up for what is right and be the conscience of the community, even if it means that we must make hard decisions.

You can learn more about this case and watch the dash cam by going to KUTV, Fox 13, KSL, the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News