Summary of the Documentary
The 2011 movie Hot Coffee, directed by Susan Saladoff, depicts four cases of judicial injustice. The one case that grabbed a lot of public attention is about 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, who was burned by hot McDonald’s coffee. After she sued the company, the media made it seem like she did it for the money. While Stella only wanted the organization to pay the bill for the operation she needed due to third-degree burns, and to fix their coffee machine, so that no one else would have such a situation.
The second case that, for me, personally, was the most impressive in the worst way is about Jamie Leigh Jones. A 19-year-old girl signed a contract for a job that she really needed at the time. What she did not know was that with the contract, she also signed the mandatory arbitration clauses. She was falsely imprisoned after being raped by her male co-workers. Jamie could not sue the company in court for four years because of the clauses. Her goal was not even financial compensation; it was to implement legislative changes to mandatory arbitration clauses.
Analysis
The movie reflects the impact large businesses have on the judicial system. It shows from a completely new perspective how they can manipulate the public and distort lawsuits for their own benefit. This documentary was eye-opening for me, as it showed how easy it is to completely mislead people and make them see things in ways that are profitable for corporations.
The movie highlights how the tort system is not what businesses want citizens to believe it is. It is not a reform that, if implemented, will work for the betterment of the common people. It is a system that helps businesses evade responsibility for the horrible things that happen because of their neglect and disregard. Moreover, after watching the film, I realized that even the American government, whose main purpose should be to protect its citizens, is, in fact, only interested in helping corporations make even more money.
The documentary also highlights how much easier it is to get elected to any significant position if an individual shares such views. As the Oliver E. Diaz case has shown, large businesses will gladly spend tens of millions of dollars to portray a person’s image more favorably than it is, making false accusations about their opponents. All while people who actually care about the future of the country and its citizens, and want to work in their interests, cannot raise funds to compete.
Personal Reflection
Such documentaries are very important because they draw attention to cases that were misinterpreted and to society’s ignorance, which directly affects the country’s future. People are very easily influenced, and most of the time, they do not question the information presented to them. Consequently, I think the main lesson everyone can take from this documentary is the importance of critical thinking before voting for a reform to be implemented or for a person to be elected to an influential position. Any responsible individual should try to get to the truth themselves. Rather than adopting a point of view that is profitable for businesses rather than citizens, it is important to obtain the knowledge required for an informed decision that will benefit the general public, the average person.