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

A jury in Los Angeles has awarded $18 million in punitive damages in an asbestos personal injury case against Dow Chemical subsidiary Union Carbide, according to this press release from the plaintiff’s lawyers.  (Izell v. Union Carbide Corp., et al., LASC no. BC469931.)

The jury had previously awarded $30 million in compensatory damages, consisting entirely of non-economic damages (pain and suffering).  Because the jury allocated 60 percent to fault to Union Carbide, it will be responsible for $18 million in compensatory damages, resulting in a one to one ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.

By my count, this is the third largest punitive damages award of the year in California.

MSNBC.com is reporting that yesterday a jury in Oakland awarded $21 million in punitive damages, on top of a compensatory damages award of $7 million, to a woman who alleged she was sexually abused by a member of the Fremont congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  (Jane Doe v. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Alameda Superior Court no. HG11558324.)

Defense counsel says he is planning to appeal; he says he is not aware of any other case in which a religious organization was held liable for wrongdoing committed by a church member who was not in an an official position of responsibility.

Update:  Here is a link to the Court of Appeal online docket.  Some documents in the case have been posted here.

BusinessWeek reports that a jury in federal district court in Illinois has awarded $81 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages against ConAgra Foods, Inc.  The case involves an explosion in a grain elevator in 2010 that left three workers severely injured. Interestingly, ConAgra says the entire amount is covered by insurance.  I suspect their insurers may disagree.  I don’t know what law is being applied in this particular case but in most states, including California, punitive damages are not insurable (notwithstanding some arguments to the contrary).