Issues
Cases
Resources
FootnoteTV ®
No Frames
Footnote Comics™
 Mirror Law™ |
Site FAQ | Search
B.B. | Shop
Author FAQ
| Newsaic ® | FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board | By Stephen Lee |
|
Issues |
Cases |
Resources |
FootnoteTV ® No Frames |
Footnote Comics™ |
|
Site FAQ | Search B.B. | Shop |
Author FAQ |
|
In one episode, Kramer sues Starbucks after he spills coffee on himself and suffers some burns. He is represented by Jackie Chiles, a lawyer based in mannerism on Johnnie Cochran, a character who appears in several more episodes, including the series finale (discussed here). Is this based on a real case, and how closely does it follow? This episode takes its premise from perhaps the most infamous lawsuit of modern times, the McDonald's coffee case won by Stella Liebeck in 1994. The episode perpetuates some of the misconceptions surrounding this case, an all-too-common result ever since the case first caught the public's eye (Steve Martin even mentioned it in a New York Times frontispiece welcoming the new millenium). I'd like to take this opportunity to try explaining the case and correcting the record. Anyone who wants to understand the legal system better - and the dangers posed by media interpretation of the law - should take a closer look at this case. First, wasn't this a silly lawsuit? Actually, no. The case has been misinterpreted as that of a stupid woman spilling coffee on herself and suing McDonald's over the coffee being hot. This interpretation is given new life countless times each day with those warnings on the styrofoam cups at fast-food restaurants and coffee-shop chains, as well as in this episode of Seinfeld and even Steve Martin's piece in the New York Times opening the new millenium (he wrote: "And think of poor Socrates, with his simple answer to the question 'What is justice?' There was just no way for him to have foreseen a jury's $3 million payout to a McDonald's customer who spilled a cup of too-hot coffee in her lap."). But that interpretation misses some crucial facts. She wasn't driving at the time; she was a passenger in a parked car. And she wasn't just burned a little bit; she suffered third-degree burns that required hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment, and skin grafting, and that left her disabled for two years. Moreover, her claim was never so simple or silly as depicted by television. Rather, the claim was that McDonald's was serving its coffee in a way that was too dangerous. Evidence at trial showed that McDonald's policy was to keep its batches of coffee some 20 to 30 degrees hotter than was drinkable so that it would not have to make fresher batches during the day and the company admitted that the coffee was so hot when sold so as to be "not fit for consumption." It knew that people sitting in cars and wearing their seatbelts like Stella Liebeck was couldn't just stand up and wipe such hot coffee off themselves fast enough to prevent massive burns. It knew that roughly 70 people got injured as a result each year (in fact, this was not the first coffee case against McDonald's; the company had settled for $230,000 just a few years before in a similar case, and a court-appointed mediator had recommended that McDonald's settle this case as well). The presiding judge even called McDonald's actions "callous" when he upheld the jury's finding of liability and denied McDonald's motion for a new trial. Second, wasn't this partly her own fault? Yes it was, and the jury actually said so. Yes, she spilled the coffee and should have been more careful opening the lid. But that doesn't mean that McDonald's is off the hook; it doesn't change the jury's finding that McDonald's should have been serving its coffee in a way that would not result in these kinds of burns on a regular basis. Modern tort law generally allows a plaintiff to recover for their injuries even if they bear some responsibility for what happened; the jury just reduces the plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of the incident they bear responsibility for. That's what the jury did here. They held for Stella Liebeck, but they reduced the damages they would have otherwise granted her by a third. Third, but didn't she get rich off this lawsuit? Actually, no. Yes, she was initially awarded $160,000 to cover her medical bills and her loss of income and then she was awarded the staggering sum of $2.7 million in punitive damages (a figure not pulled randomly but based on the estimated money McDonald's makes in coffee sales over two days). But she never got anything like that amount of money. Using standard principles of law, the judge quickly reduced damages by more than 75 percent to $640,000, or three times the amount of compensatory damages. Then subtract a 1/3 contingency fee for her lawyers, and Liebeck would get about $430,000. This was no lottery jackpot, especially when you consider all she had to go through to get it. And she still did not even get that much. Both sides wanted to appeal the judge's ruling, and McDonald's obviously had deep enough pockets to appeal this case as long as it wanted. Instead, the parties settled for an amount reportedly less than $600,000 (there were also confidentiality provisions). What all this means is that the jury's decision in the case of Stella Liebeck was not necessarily the sign of a legal system gone mad. Maybe if you'd been on the jury, hearing all the evidence, you still would have decided for McDonald's. That's okay, too. But the case is more complex than how politicians, late-night talk-show comedians, and Cosmo Kramer have made it seem for years. Look more closely.  In the Seinfeld series finale, Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer are prosecuted in Massachusetts for violating a Good Samaritan law. Could this really happen? Kind of. Jerry and his friends could indeed be prosecuted in several states for not helping the robbery victim (but the trial would be very different, as seen HERE), but they would not be sentenced to jail time, at least not under current Massachusetts law. Generally, states do not require people under either criminal or civil law to help others. This may sound cold-hearted, but it actually is rooted in two well-established concepts. First of all, American law respects individual autonomy and generally refrains from making anyone do anything. Second, requiring you to be a Good Samaritan is kind of vague and it's hard to know where to draw the line: should you be prosecuted for not donating food to starving children on the other side of the world? Why not? Thus, most states generally do not do anything about the people who watch the little girl drowning and could have helped. There are some common exceptions for certain kinds of people who are obligated by law to help: close family members (e.g., the girl's mother), people who are contractually obligated to help (e.g., the lifeguards on duty), and people who cause the danger in the first place (e.g., the mean boy who pushed her in). But since 1968, some states have enacted Good Samaritan laws like the one seen on Seinfeld, or at least considered them in the wake of particularly egregious cases which could have been stopped easily. These states impose a duty on people to use reasonable efforts to prevent some kind of wrongdoing, or at least to report the matter to the proper authorities. Vermont was the first state to enact such a law in regards to emergency medical help. Wisconsin, Washington, Florida, and Rhode Island are among the states that have followed that lead, often in relation to protecting children or preventing sex-related attacks. (A different kind of Good Samaritan law protects people who are trying to be Good Samaritans from getting sued for it later. Even if you're not required to help someone, once you start helping someone, you have to do it properly or risk getting sued if you make things worse. The second type of Good Samaritan law immunizes would-be rescuers (often doctors and firemen) and lets them do good deeds without worrying about possible bad consequences to themselves.) And yes, Massachusetts does have a few laws that would be considered the first type of Good Samaritan law. And one does apply quite clearly to Jerry Seinfeld and friends in this situation. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268, Section 40, does require that anyone who "knows that another person is a victim of aggravated rape, rape, murder, manslaughter or armed robbery and is at the scene of said crime shall, to the extent that said person can do so without danger or peril to himself or others, report said crime to an appropriate law enforcement official as soon as reasonably practicable." Jerry and his friends saw someone being robbed, they were in no danger to themselves, and they could easily have called the police. Instead, they just laughed. They have pretty clearly violated the state law. But what's the penalty? Under Massachusetts law, the penalty is simply a $500-2,500 fine. There is no prison sentence involved. In the real world, Jerry, Elaine, Kramer, and George simply paid the fines and moved on. Whether that's a good thing, that's for others to say. (Interestingly enough, you can go to jail in Massachusetts for not helping law-enforcement officials when asked. You can get a month in jail for refusing to help stop a criminal or preserve the peace, and you get up to a year if you are at a riot and refuse to help suppress it or refuse to leave when ordered.) Sources: Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268, Section 40 (268:24-25, 269:2 and 18), Florida Statute 794.027, Rhode Island 11-56-1, Vermont §519, Washington 9.69.100, Wisconsin 940.34. In the Seinfeld series finale, the prosecutors bring forth a parade of the people that the Seinfeld gang have encountered over the years to help prove that they're not good people. Could this really happen? No. One of the hallmarks of the American legal system is that you are only tried for committing a crime, not for being a bad person. And it doesn't matter if you are a bad person. The prosecutor can only charge you of committing a crime. He cannot bring in other people to testify about bad things you've done in your past, or even about other crimes you may have committed, because that would make the jury more likely to convict you for the wrong reasons. There are some exceptions to this. For example, the prosecutor can introduce evidence of other crimes if you have a certain pattern of doing crimes and this helps the jury see that you are guilty of this particular crime. But judges should be keeping tight control over this and not allow the case to get out of hand. The only way that a prosecutor could bring in a parade of character witnesses is if Jerry and his friends were to take the position that they did not commit the crime because they are good people who do help other people. That would open the door and make character an issue, and then the prosecutor could bring witnesses to rebut that defense. Even then, the judge would not allow the case to get out of hand, and he would limit the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses to incidents that are similar to the alleged crime. That Jerry dumped Sidra (played by Teri Hatcher) because he thought her breasts were fake and that he may have sent Elaine into the women's sauna to test them (at least that's what Sidra thought) may show Jerry's a bad person, but not in a way that's relevant to the trial at hand. In real life, in the unlikely event that there would be a trial at all, then the trial would have been much simpler. The prosecutors would have called the robbery victim and any other witnesses to testify that Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer had stood by and laughed instead of helping or calling the police. The defense would cross-examine those witnesses to see how well they knew what actually happened. The prosecution would then rest. The defense would then either call Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer (or anyone else who'd seen the incident) to the stand or rest. Only if the defense was careless would it introduce character evidence, and only then could the prosecution call a few character witnesses in rebuttal. |
||||||||||||||
| DISCLAIMER. The materials contained in this website have been prepared by Stephen Lee ("Author") for informational purposes only and do not contain or constitute legal advice. These materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. Furthermore, this information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results. Reading this website is not intended to create, and your receipt and/or use of the information contained herein, does not constitute an attorney/client relationship. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Reproduction, distribution or republication of material contained within this website is prohibited unless the prior permission of Author has been obtained. (C) Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004 Stephen Lee. All rights reserved. Newsaic and FootnoteTV are registered service marks of Stephen Lee. Mirror Law and Footnote Comics are service marks of Stephen Lee. More information available here. Comments or suggestions to the Site Editor. |
| Newsaic ® | FootnoteTV ® | Footnote Comics™ | Mirror Law™ | Bulletin Board | By Stephen Lee |
