Last year we blogged about the documentary “Hot Coffee,” which focuses on Liebeck v. McDonald’s and a few other cases to illustrate the evils of tort reform.  As noted in our prior post, the film’s director Susan Saladoff said she made the film as an antidote to what she perceives as a pro-defendant bias in the mainstream media’s treatment of tort reform.

In this video provided by Widener University School of Law, you can view a debate between Ms. Saladoff and Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American Tort Reform Association.  The video has something for folks on both sides of the issue.  If you’re a fan of the movie, you’ll enjoy seeing Ms. Saladoff passionately explain why everyone should see this film, because it opens people’s eyes to the corporate takeover of the American justice system.  If you’re not a fan of the movie, you’ll enjoy seeing Mr. Schwartz identify all the parts of the film he believes are false or misleading.

Warning, this video was recorded via Skype and its a little garbled in places.  There are some moments when students are asking questions of Ms. Saladoff and Mr. Schwartz, but the questions are inaudible.  And the video begins in the middle of Ms. Saladoff’s comments.  Despite these technical glitches, I found the video quite interesting.

Hat tip: TortsProf Blog

Related posts:

“Hot Coffee” documentary takes aim at media depictions of civil litigation

Judge Rex Hesseman of the Los Angeles County Superior Court has an op-ed in the Los Angeles & San Francisco Daily Journal entitled “‘Finances’ and punitive damages.”  (Subscription required.)  Judge Heeseman, who writes regularly on punitive damages and insurance law, focuses this time on Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor.  Here’s his conclusion about the potential effects of the Court of Appeal’s decision to affirm a $4.5 million punitive damages award based on expert opinion that the defendant could pay such an award, notwithstanding its negative net worth:

It can be asserted that focusing upon finances is a sort of an “end run” around the aforementioned “guidelines” of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Furthermore, the emphasis by Bullock III and ArvinMeritor on the “specific facts of each case” (admittedly echoing comments in Campbell) may bring flexibility, but also uncertainty.  . . .  And, for the “punitive damages phase” in some lawsuits, is it now advisable (required?) to have your “expert witness” ready to testify about “net worth,” “financial condition” and/or “ability to pay”?  Will there be a “dueling of experts” in that context, similar to that in some other litigation (e.g. standard of care in medical malpractice)?

We hope the California Supreme Court will provide some guidance on these questions in the furture, but as we noted in our most recent post about Bankhead, the California Supreme Court declined to wade into this area of the law in the context of that case.

Related posts:

California Supreme Court denies review in Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor

Defendant files petition for review in Bankhead v. Arvinmeritor

Published opinion affirms $4.5M punitive damages award in asbestos case (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor)  

The Federal National Mortgage Association, better known as Fannie Mae, cannot be liable for punitive damages so long as it remains under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.  So says an order issued by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  (Herron v. Fannie Mae, no. 1:10-CV-00943-RMC.)  
That’s consistent with the general rule that instrumentalities of the federal government are not subject to punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Woodland Production Credit Assn. v. Nicholas (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 123, 129 [“[n]either the federal government nor its instrumentalities may be held liable for punitive damages unless there is an express statutory authorization for such an award”].)

Hat tip: The Blog of LegalTimes