Related posts

• Wal-Mart vs. Kevin Brancato (0)
• Vexatious litigant jailed for contempt (1)
• Updates (1)
• Suit against Wal-Mart: You arrested me just because I left the store with items without paying (40)
• September 2000 archives, part 3 (0)

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Sanctimonious posse pursuing Ronald McDonald (0)

“The law empowers private litigants to enforce its terms without having to show that any consumer has been exposed to any material or substantial risk, let alone harmed,” Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told the E-Commerce Times. “As a result, entrepreneurial law firms roam the state identifying new, often far-fetched, unwarned-of risks and extracting cash settlements along with promises to warn from hapless defendants.”

Related posts

• Archived food and beverage posts, pre-July 2003 (1)
• Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit (5)
• Yes, tea is hot, too: Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks (10)
• Yes, tea is hot, too. (Redux: Villona Maryash edition) (0)
• Welcome Wall Street Journal readers (1)

Related posts

• February 15 roundup (4)
• August 31 roundup (1)
• Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit (5)
• Worker’s comp: trauma over visitor’s remark (0)
• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)

For to really embrace tort reform, you have to be willing to treat all potential plaintiffs as no-good grifters. … To support tort reform, you have to believe all lawsuits against businesses are a threat to the free market.

Stuever does not, for some reason, name any proponent of reform who has actually asserted either of the propositions. Do you think that might be because he’s trafficking in absurd caricatures? (earlier on “Hot Coffee” here, here, here, etc.)

P.S. More: Cory Andrews, WLF. And if lawyers are really eager to have the facts of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case come out, it’s curious they don’t take steps to release the trial transcript, in the absence of which critics of the case are obliged to speculate on key points. And as I just wrote in a comment at Abnormal Use:

I believe organized tort reform groups were caught flat-footed by the McDonald’s case and didn’t get around to doing much with it until it had already become the talk of the nation through talk shows, late night TV and so forth. As often happens, plaintiff’s-side advocacy groups were more aggressive in seeking coverage for their side in the media. Thus Public Citizen and allies gave a press conference on Capitol Hill and were rewarded with a big Newsweek story summarizing their talking points (as well as, earlier, coverage in the news-side WSJ). I’m pretty sure no groups critical of the Liebeck award ever did a comparable press push; and the McDonald’s company itself, so far as I know, never chose to cooperate with commentators who might be sympathetic to its legal case.

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Overlawyering making America a laughingstock (0)

The Stella Liebeck case was exactly the sort of thing that turns into an urban legend, and there are certainly a lot of inaccuracies that crept into the story as it went viral. The Liebeck case got politicized, however: it was an outrageous result and picked up as a poster child for tort reform, and, fascinatingly, the trial lawyer lobby, instead of reasonably saying “Look: the justice system is never going to be 100 percent correct, there have been a dozen hot coffee cases before this one where the courts got it right and threw it out, and you can’t make public policy based on a single anecdote just because the judge made a mistake here” decided to engage in a misinformation campaign to argue that the Liebeck case was both correct and an aspirational result for our tort system – and a disturbing number of law professors joined that cause. If you Google for the case, the vast majority of results are trial-lawyer sites filled with misstatements of the facts and laws. It’s gotten to the point that, in the majority of tort reform debates I participate in, it’s the trial lawyer who is the first to introduce the subject. I’ve been following the case and rebutting the misinformation on both sides since it first made the news, and it just so happens that the majority of misinformation is coming from the plaintiffs’ lawyer side these days. One of these days, I’ll lock myself in a room for a couple of weeks and write a law review article on the subject so there can be a one stop place for truthful information and arguments about the case.

I, too, gave a lot of thought to writing up the long controversy over the Liebeck case in my latest book, precisely because academic sources, and not just trial-lawyer publicists, persistently spread distortions and misconceptions about the case. Eventually it seemed like too wide a digression from the book’s main themes — but someone still needs to write up that story.

Related posts

• November 18 roundup (5)
• January 16 roundup (0)
• “Hot coffee is back!” (13)
• Zombie Litigation (1)
• Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit (5)

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Responses to comments on yesterday’s McDonald’s coffee posts (1)

P.S. And a follow-up that really stands on its own as a resource: “The Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ“

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• “Hot coffee is back!” (13)
• Update: Alice Griffin v. Starbucks (0)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• The Litigation Lobby’s “frivolous” bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit (4)

Related posts

• Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit (5)
• Yes, tea is hot, too: Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks (10)
• Yes, tea is hot, too. (Redux: Villona Maryash edition) (0)
• Update: Alice Griffin v. Starbucks (0)
• Ted on the Return(?) of the Coffee Tort (7)

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Poutine injuries in Canada (4)
• McDonald’s coffee revisited (10)
• Yes, tea is hot, too: Zeynep Inanli v. Starbucks (10)