Speaker A

What’s the difference between an accountant and a lawyer? Answer • • • accountants know they’re boring. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

Welcome to the cross examiner podcast. The Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. Here, our host uses his experience as, uh, both an attorney and an atheist to put religion on trial. We solemnly swear that it is the most informative, educational, and entertaining jury duty you will ever do. And now it’s time for the cross examiner. • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

Welcome. Welcome to the cross examiner podcast. I am your host. I am the cross examiner. I’m very glad you’re here. Um, I am a novice. I am new at this. Uh, so please forgive any mistakes. I’m going to learn. I’m going to do a nice, big episode here, a deep dive type of episode so I can get used to talking to you. I can explain some things, and I hope we can find some common ground. And to that end, I’ll tell you just a little bit about myself, and then we’ll jump into analyzing a lawsuit. I am an atheist and an attorney, and I am alarmed. And I am alarmed about the rise of Christian nationalism in America, the attempts of various powerful religious groups to take control of the reins of government and wrest it away from democratic institutions. • • Um, I think that this movement has been powered in some part by a massive amount of misinformation, and you’ve seen it as the internet has blossomed into a meme generation machine, and the social media networks have turned into echo chambers that have algorithms that reinforce those echo chambers. We are now a country that one of the deepest threats to our democracy is misinformation. And if I’ve learned one thing through just life and studying the law for 20 years, it is this if you believe things based on insufficient evidence, you can hurt yourself really bad, and you can hurt each other. So, for my first episode, I’m not going to jump into religious stuff and debate stuff. I want to find something we can all agree on. So I decided I’m going to analyze a lawsuit that has this message that can demonstrate that if you believe things wrongly, you can hurt yourself. I hope we all remember this case. So instead of introducing it, I’m just going to play the media’s reaction to when this case was decided and see if you remember this. Here we go.

Speaker C

In Albuquerque, an 81 year old woman has been awarded $2.9 million after she sued McDonald’s, claiming their coffee was too hot. It seems she was holding a cup between her legs while driving.

Speaker D

I spoke to a lawyer. We’re suing for millions. • • • •

Speaker A

Suing? What for?

Speaker D

The coffee was too hot, • • • • • • • • • clamped it between her legs, drove down the street, spilled it, burned herself, sued McDonald’s, and collected.

Speaker C

I mean, it’s not like the McDonald’s person leaned over the car and poured it. It was an accident.

Speaker D

Now she claims she broke her nose on the sneeze, got it to sizzler. Bending over, looking at the chickpeas. OOH, my coffee was too hot. It’s coffee. • • • • Plasma getting bigger. Jesus getting smaller. Spill a cup of coffee, make a million dollars.

Speaker A

M man, it’s hot.

Speaker D

How hot is it? It’s so hot.

Speaker A

I poured McDonald’s coffee in my lap.

Speaker E

To cool off asus earth blank, because.

Speaker A

I called them up.

Speaker D

They had the nerve to put me on hold.

Speaker A

I sue starbucks because I filled a.

Speaker D

Frappuccino in my lap and burrito was cold. • • • • • • •

Speaker A

The McDonald hot coffee case. You remember this, right? If you grew up in the United States, you know this case. This is part, uh, of urban legend. This is, uh, part of our judicial jurisprudence now. It is something that everybody’s familiar with. Why am I talking about this instead of religion? Well, here’s a little exercise. Take a snapshot in your brain right now. Take a picture of your opinion about this case, • • uh, all the facts. You know how ridiculous it was that a woman, as Katie couric, the person who led that clip I just played, uh, a respected journalist told us, woman driving down the street with a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee between her legs, spills it, hires an attorney, sues, wins millions of dollars. Ridiculous. So take a snapshot of that, and then remember that. Because by the end of me reviewing this case, I would be willing to bet a lot of money that you do a 180, • • that you find that this case was utterly justified, that McDonald’s was utterly in the wrong, and that she might, uh, not have gotten enough money. All right, • • that’s why I want to talk about this instead of religion. Because no matter your political leanings, your religious leanings, your gender, your age, everybody, when they hear the facts of this case, agrees. The entire country was fooled into thinking something about this case by those in power and for a very specific reason. • • And we’ve got all the evidence. We’re going to do a deep dive. And I think it’s the best demonstration I could come up with of an example of how people’s misunderstanding of the legal system. They believed things about this case that were wrong based on unverified evidence, • • • and they ended up enacting laws in a reaction to this that hurt the country and hurt their neighbors and maybe even hurt themselves. • • So • • let’s review it. Stick with me. We’re going to do two things. We’re going to review the case. I’m going to explain the legalities of the case, the facts of the case, and the decision. And then we’re going to talk about how the case was used in a campaign to try to trick people into supporting bad legislation. So let’s dig in. The case is called Lebek v. McDonald’s. Stella Liebeck was • • • the coffee. Uh, • spiller? She did spill the coffee. That’s the one true fact. She did spill the coffee. She was a 79 year old grandmother. I’m not going to go through all the details. I will go through the facts that everybody got wrong. So maybe I will go through all the details, because every other fact is probably wrong. First, she was not the driver. • Second, nobody was driving. She was in a car, but she was in the passenger seat. • • The car was parked in the McDonald’s parking lot. Okay, no big deal. But just note that’s the first thing, the very first fact wrong. Katie couric, what she said, driving around with a cup of coffee between your legs, katie, you were wrong, and you hurt the country by not checking your facts. What happened was, her nephew • • • • • came to pick her up to go on some sort of trip errands or whatever, and they wanted coffee first. So being the careful young nephew, he pulled through the drive through, got the coffee, and then parked the car in the parking lot so that they could prepare it while the car was not moving. He was trying to be careful, just like we want people to be. If you drink coffee, you know, you want to put some sugar and some cream in there. So he parked the car so they could do that. He was driving a ford probe. It didn’t have a lot of or any maybe cup holders back then. 1989 cup holders. This case, this happened in 1992, by the way. Pre internet. And that’s kind of important. • • And, uh, she spilled the coffee. She went to take the lid off. She spilled it in her lap. 8oz of hot coffee in her lap. So what, • • we’ve all spilled a hot beverage on us. We stand up, we pull our clothes away from our skin. We SOP it up, we fan it. Our skin gets red, it stings, and we get on with our lives, right? Okay, • • so, um, erroneous thing number three or four, wherever we are, that’s not what happened to stella. • • Stella lieback went to the hospital. She instantly went into shock. Okay, maybe she’s old and fragile. • She went to the hospital, and she was diagnosed with third degree burns over 6% of her body. • • • • She had to stay in the hospital burn unit for eight days. • • • She had to have multiple skin graft surgeries. That’s not even talking. The rest of her body that had second degree burns. We’re just talking third degree burns here. She lost 20% of her body weight because she was in shock. She couldn’t eat. And doctors told her family that she might die. • • Because with third degree burns, which are the most painful thing a human can go through, your skin is flayed off of you, and your flesh is exposed. The inner thighs, her private area, her buttocks, third degree burns. And at that age, you’re going to get an infection. You don’t have your skin to protect you. Our skin protects us from all the pathogens in the air. She’s going to get an infection. You’ve maybe seen burn units where people wear suits and there’s special care to make sure there’s no germs. • She survived, • • • but she was permanently disfigured, and she had to spend, uh, three weeks under constant care at home, changing wound, changing dressings on her wounds, making sure she doesn’t go back into shock, making sure that she’s able to eat and all those things. And her daughter took care of her for three straight weeks until she was able to start being on her own. And she required two more years of doctors visits, medications, and treatments, • • • • • • • maybe M. • • Your opinion is starting to change now. Have you ever heard of anybody • • spilling coffee on themselves, • • going into shock and getting third degree burns over 6% of their bodies, and spending eight days • • • after going to the emergency room because of shock, eight days in the hospital getting multiple skin graft surgeries? • • • • It’s shocking, right? We were pretty wrong about this. The final nail in the coffin. And I’m going to give you a warning about this. • • • • I have • • posted the images of her wounds that were introduced at the trial to my website, thecrossexaminer net. • • If you go to my site and look at these images, they’re associated with this episode first, episode number one. Only do it if you have a strong stomach. There is a documentary called Hot Coffee. Excellent documentary. It’s about this case and other cases that people thought were frivolous lawsuits, but were portrayed that way on purpose by big business • • to get people to try to attack the courts. Those images are shocking. And in that documentary, they do what I’m doing now kind of they visit the man in the street and they talk to them, and they say, you remember this case? And they say, yeah, • • it was ridiculous. And then they pull out these pictures, • • and the mood changes, and you hear audible gasps, and you hear phrases like, oh, my God, sweet Jesus, • • • • what happened? • • And, uh, people’s looks, their faces turn from looks of bemusement to utter horror. So that’s what’s in store for you if you go look at these pictures. I dare you to look at these pictures and think that this was a frivolous lawsuit, that this was normal, that McDonald’s didn’t make a grave mistake and had screwed up this coffee. So now compare what we know now with what you heard in those clips. Katie Couric was wrong. The news media was wrong. The stories came out Albuquerque, where it happened. The local newspaper had like, a six or 700 word article that had some of these details. The AP picked it up, and they broadcast across the wire. Back then, uh, there’s not Internet. So they sent this story out to their offices in about 300 words, and by the time it got to major news outlets, 48 words. • • • • That’s what the stories were. How do you describe what I just told you in 48 words and not lose a tremendous amount of information? • • So shame on the media. • • They fell for the oldest trick in the book, • • which is somebody tells you the truth about something. Lady pours coffee on herself, sues and wins a lot of money. And they didn’t bother to check the actual context. But why did she win so much, right? Surely her medical bills weren’t that much. Surely, • um, • • • • • • • it was just a genuine mistake on McDonald’s parts. Well, that’s what Stella thought. So now we’re going to get to, erroneous, fact number seven. I’ve lost count where we are here. And that is everybody says she hired an attorney and sued McDonald’s. • • That’s not true. • • • • • Not at first. • • • She, like • • • • a decent, naive person, thought that McDonald’s had made some sort of mistake, that somebody at that restaurant had left the coffee on too hot or there was a defect in the machine. So she together, uh, with her family, got together, and they wrote a very detailed letter to McDonald’s. • • And you can go see the letter. It’s, it’s in the evidence of the case. It’s everywhere on the internet when you look at this case. Dear McDonald’s, I’m concerned. I think • • • there’s some problem with your coffee at this restaurant. • • • This is what happened to me. Third degree burns, two years, permanently disfigured. • • So she probably asked for a million dollars, right? All the pain and suffering from a third degree burn. How much would you take for • • eight days in the burn unit getting skin graft surgeries and being permanently disfigured? That’s a lot of pain and suffering, a lot of loss of joy. • • She didn’t ask for any. She said, could you please reimburse me for my medical expenses that the insurance company won’t pay. That’s all she asked for. And it totaled $18,000.10 and a half for the hospital stay that her insurance didn’t cover. Five grand because her daughter had to take off work to care for her, and she had to take some leave without pay. • • And about two and a half grand for ongoing medical treatments for the next two years that the insurance company told her they were not going to cover. Because we live in a country where there’s no national health care, she has to ask McDonald’s to pay her back. So this whole case wouldn’t have happened if we lived in a country that had national health care. She would have just said, • • genuine mistake. FYI, McDonald’s, your coffee is too hot. This happened. My medical expenses are covered. And she didn’t even ask for any sort of pain and suffering or non economic losses. • • • Amazing, right? • • If you’re a conservative thing, thinks you should just take it in the face and be strong and not ask for compensation, you couldn’t ask for a better, more honest, more pull yourself up by the bootstraps plaintiff. • • Not even a plaintiff. She hadn’t sued. She just wrote a letter. McDonald’s told her to go screw herself. • They offered to $800. • That’s a slap in the face. You’ve seen the pictures. You’ve heard the story. $800. Would you accept $100 a day for third degree burns, skin graft, surgeries, and permanent disfigurement? figurement • • I wouldn’t. I mean, that’s more insulting than if they hadn’t responded. So then the family decided, all right, we need this money. We’re not rich. 18 grand back then. That’s 1994 by the time well, 92, 94 is. She sued in 94. Uh, the incident happened in 92. So she took years before she even got to court right back then. So that’s double today. So that’s $36,000. There’s not a lot of families that can just take a $36,000 hit and just get on with their lives. And that’s all she was asking for back then, 18 grand. • • So McDonald says no. • • • So then they hire an attorney, a man by the name of Ken Wagner. • • • He’s not a professional McDonald’s sewer. He was just an attorney they found, and he did what we attorneys do, and he started investigating. What are the actual facts here? He looked at the medical records. He looked at • • • the doctor’s opinion about how hot this coffee was, and he’s like, there’s something really wrong here. This is not just negligence. This is gross negligence. There’s some utter disregard for safety going in here. Let’s sue. And we’re going to ask for 90,000 now for your coverage and your pain and suffering. So he files a suit. 90 grand • • initially, is what he’s asking, uh, McDonald’s to settle for. And they say no again. • • Then at some point before the trial, they go into mediation. • • Mediation is a filter. It’s not part of the trial. It is a third party thing. And both parties can say, hey, let’s try to avoid a trial. We’ll go to a neutral third party, a company that hires a bunch of experts. And an expert is assigned to your case that is familiar with the issues, and you act like it’s court. You give them evidence. You make arguments. You can produce witnesses and depositions and documents and all this stuff. And the expert will make a suggestion as to how you should settle the case. And keep in mind, they are not like juries and judges. Juries and judges. If you go into court and you have the facts on your side, they will give you everything that you do 100%. • • • Most of the time • • with mediators, they tend to like to split the baby. They try to make everybody happy so you don’t get everything you want, but you don’t have to go to trial. The mediator, this independent expert on product safety or food safety, suggested that the fair thing to do, the sort of middle ground, would be for McDonald’s to pay Stella on the order of a quarter of a million dollars. • • $250,000 was fair. But to this mediator who was trying to split the baby, McDonald’s said no. • • They said no to 18. They said no to 90. They said no to 250. They walked themselves into court. • • And once you’re, uh, at trial, not once you’re in trial, but once you’re into the lawsuit, right? You’ve got the initial motion settled out, and it’s looking like we need to proceed with this thing. We’re going to do something called discovery. • • Discovery is where both parties get to discover what • • • evidence the opposing party has. Because contrary to all of the TV dramas, courtroom dramas, we don’t like surprises at trial. Surprises at trial encourage trials. Getting all the evidence out ahead of time so everybody knows where everybody stands. That discourages trial. That encourages people to settle again. Another filter to frivolous lawsuits. Get all the evidence out. Get everybody to testify in depositions before the trial so we can lock the story in, and they won’t be able to change it when trial comes up. And then let’s talk again. So during discovery, ken Wagner found a couple of very interesting pieces of information that I think you will agree makes this case even worse. As if that’s even easy to imagine. First, he requested all of the records from McDonald’s of, uh, reports they had received about people being burned by their coffee. And keep in mind, these are in the days of the, uh, pre Internet. There was no way to know if you were in a small town in Albuquerque, in Albuquerque, • • New Mexico, or a small town in Iowa, small town in California, big town in New York, wherever. • • There was no way to know that other people were getting burned. There was no hashtag, I got burned by McDonald’s. There was no subreddit of McDonald’s coffee survivors. Right? There was no way for you to know that you weren’t alone. • • • So he subpoenaed these records, and McDonald’s turned over records that showed they had well over 700 • • reports of people telling McDonald’s that they had been burned by their coffee over a ten year period. That’s 70 every year for ten years. That’s once every five days, somebody is telling McDonald’s, I’ve been burned. Not, ow, I got burned, and, oh, I’ll just walk it off. I don’t need to tell McDonald’s. • • These people had to go out of their way to report to McDonald’s that they’d been burned. Pre internet, no easy email, no form to fill out. • • • • • • 700 of these people had been burned. And McDonald’s had been settling these cases quietly around the country. They had paid out over 500 close to a million dollars in settlements in the period of 82 to, uh, 83 to 92, the ten year period before this happened. So they knew that their coffee was too hot and it was burning people. • • That’s discovery item number one. Discovery item number two. They got their hands on the franchisee operations manual. This is the manual that tells the owner of m the McDonald’s restaurant, the local owner, how to run their restaurant. Because as a franchisee, you are not an employee of McDonald’s. You own the restaurant, and you are an independent legal entity. You have nothing to do with McDonald’s. From a I’m not your employee standpoint, right. But you have a contract with McDonald’s that says you will follow this manual. And if you don’t, McDonald’s will eventually come in and take your restaurant from you, and then make all the profits instead of you. So you follow this manual. And the manual said, keep the coffee at 190 degrees fahrenheit. That’s 88 celsius for those of you in enlightened countries. 190 degrees. How hot is that? They weren’t sure. So they sent private investigators all over albuquerque, taking the temperature of coffee. They’d order coffee, pull out a thermometer as soon as it was to give it to them, and take the temperature. The next hottest restaurant they found was 170 degrees. • • 20 degrees cooler than the McDonald’s restaurant. Something very, very strange. Why? • • • • The majority were not 170. The majority were like 160, right? Lower 150. The hottest was 170. And then there was McDonald’s, which was 180 to 190. • • • The guide said 180 to 190. And everybody just kept it at 190. When they went back to test, it was 190. • • So, um, • • McDonald’s knew people were getting burned. McDonald’s knew they were keeping their coffee at 190 hotter than anybody else. • • • • • But so what, right? That doesn’t prove anything. • • • • How does that matter to this case? Well, ken, the attorney, hired, uh, some experts to teach him about these wounds. So the experts taught him. And they were experts in, uh, burns from hot water. • • And the science shows that, • • ah, if you’re exposed to 190 degree liquid on your skin for 3 seconds, you get third degree burns in 3 seconds. • McDonald’s surely knew this. McDonald studies everything. As you’ll hear in a bit, they study every second of how a consumer consumes their food. And they know everything. • • So at 190 degrees, you’re going to get burned in 3 seconds. • • • They uh, know they serve a lot of coffee to a lot of old people. How many people do you think are going to spring into action? Is stella Liebeck, the 79 year old grandmother, going to spring into action and in 3 seconds, remove the coffee from her legs, pull her pants away from her body, SOP it up, fan it while sitting in a car? No way. They knew that people were getting burned. The experts also said if you lower it ten degrees to 180, the time you have to react goes up, shoots way up to four times. It was, uh, twelve to 15 seconds. Let’s call it 13 seconds. Over four times as much time to react and get the coffee off of you. If you lower it down to where other restaurants had it, 160, you had over 20 seconds. This was all testified to it at trial as well. They discovered this during discovery. So the only remaining question that ken had is why? Why are you keeping it so hot? • • • • At that point, he doesn’t need a why. He can just show everybody else has it down at 170 or well below you have it at 190. You knew people were getting burned. And the science shows that you’re going, uh, to give people third degree burns. That’s not just negligence, that’s gross negligence, which we’ll get into in a minute. But you got to sort of give the jury a why to sort of put a ribbon on the case. So, • uh, the McDonald’s experts were throwing out theories about, well, • • it’s a drive through, and we like to serve the coffee hot because we know the customers, and here’s where the measurement comes in. We know the customers • • drive a bit before they start drinking their coffee. They get on the road. They get on the highway before they really start digging into our coffee. So it cools off before we give it to them or before they drink it. But during discovery, he found studies and studies and studies that McDonald’s had done of every aspect of how consumers drink their coffee. And the studies proved, McDonald’s own studies proved that that was not true. People start drinking the coffee almost right away after the drive through. • • • • So • • what other reason? His experts theorized somebody theorized. I don’t have the exact name of the, um, experts or the witnesses, but at some point during discovery, um, it was theorized. Well, uh, if you keep coffee hotter, it stays fresher longer. • • • So maybe McDonald’s was keeping it up at 190, so they had to throw away fewer half full, putt pots of coffee. • If it stays fresher longer, I make more money, right? That’s a pretty good story to tell a jury. Um, I don’t know if the jury accepted that. I don’t know if they heard that. But those were the two theories that were offered. As I said, you don’t need any of that. But it’s very curious. Like, why were they doing this? They knew they were hurting people, so they go to trial. It was seven day trial. It wasn’t a little one off where a jury just decided to go crazy. The jury was • • outraged, as I hope at this point, you would be outraged. This little old lady trying to be careful, parked in the parking lot, accidentally spills the coffee, and in under 3 seconds, she gets third degree burns, goes to the hospital in shock, has multiple skin graft surgeries, almost dies, loses 20% of her body weight, has three weeks recovery at home, two years of treatment, permanently disfigured. • • • • And McDonald’s knew that this stuff was going on and had been paying off, uh, people to be quiet about it and relying on the fact that there was no inner relying on the fact that you don’t hear about this. • • It’s happening all over, but nobody’s going to be talking about it, so we don’t have to do anything about it. And why they did it, don’t know. But maybe because the coffee stays fresher. • • So the jury said, all right, that point the lawsuit was asking the final, uh, ask for the attorney was 200,000. And the jury said, yes, you get 200,000. However, • • • • in Albuquerque and many other states, you have something called comparative negligence, which says, we realize that a lot of times when there’s a problem in court and a tort negligence, uh, • • of some sort, like a car crash, it’s not always 100% one person’s fault. Maybe somebody ran a red light, • • • but this other person was speeding and could have slowed down enough to not kill themselves or lose a leg if they hadn’t been speeding. Even though I ran the red light, you were a little bit at fault, for you wouldn’t have lost the leg if you hadn’t sped so much. That’s the classic example. And so maybe it’s 5% my fault, but it’s 95% your fault because you ran the red light. And so in that case, you sum up how much money is owed, and you say, okay, you have to pay 5% yourself because you were 5% at fault. And then the red light runner pays 95%. That’s comparative negligence. It’s a way to try to keep things fair, especially in close cases. Here the jury said, Stella, you were 20% at fault because you spilled the coffee. • • • I m think that’s too much, but certainly reasonable. I would have said she’s 5% at fault, maybe because • • • • you exercise a certain amount of care with your coffee, because in your experience, you know that if you do spill it, the injuries will not be so devastating. We can only expect people to be reasonably careful with their coffee, and you’re only reasonably careful with your coffee based on your experience of how hot coffee was. So me, I would say she’s only like two, three 5%. Jury said 20% more than fair to McDonald’s. So they only gave her 80% of the 200,000. So she got $160,000 to compensate her for her economic losses, which is the medical bills, things you can put on paper, like, here’s a receipt for my losses, and I get that. And her non economic losses, the pain and suffering, the loss of the enjoyment of her skin now that she’s disfigured all the stuff you can’t it’s not easy to put a price tag on, but they try 160 grand. • • • That’s it. • • But they also found that it was grossly negligent of McDonald’s to do all of this. And when you find gross negligence, you are allowed to award what’s called punitive damages. And as the name implies, punitive damages are a, uh, punishment. • • We are not giving Stella this money because we think she is owed it, because she’s out of pocket. Like, we’re not compensating her. We’re giving it to her to punish McDonald’s and to deter them and other restaurant owners from doing this again. • • • So they did something very clever for punitive damages. They said, we know from trial that McDonald’s makes. Uh, $1.35 million every single day from selling coffee. To give you an idea of how many coffee sales are out there, so we’re going to award Stella two days worth of coffee sales. That’s it. Two days. It sends a nice message. It’s all about the coffee and about the money you were trying to save. We’re going to take two days of those sales and give them to Stella to punish you. It’s going to be a bullet point on a shareholders meeting at the end of the quarter. It’s nothing to McDonald’s. Two days of coffee sales went to this award, • • • • • but that’s not what she got. The media doesn’t tell you this, • • • but a judge stepped in and said, well, thank you, jury, but there’s a law in our state and in many states that says you can only recover • • three times your compensatory damages as punitive damages. So he lowered the judgment. The punitive damages from 2.7 down to 480,000. • • • • 480,000. So she got a total of 640,000 • • • • • total punitive and compensatory damages. You never heard the media • • • • come, um, back and correct this. And if they did, they didn’t do it with the same prominence, of course. And not a single politician you hear talking about this case ever mentioned that part either. But • • • let’s move forward with what the story was. 2.7 million. The world went nuts. That’s what made headlines. • • • Nearly $3 million. The one and 160 plus the 2.7, • uh, • • uh, 2.7 million is what she got for the coffee. You know, 1.35 times two is, uh, 2.7 plus the 160. So 2.86. So very close to a 3 million. And you get what we heard in the Montage. We got news reports saying woman driving with a cup of coffee in her lap. Spills it, hires an attorney, sues, and a crazy jury gives her $3 million. • • • No wonder we all thought it was crazy. And no wonder everybody that looks at those pictures, that hears the story, that goes and researches this, don’t trust me? Go and look online. A lot of people have done a lot of things on this. I mentioned the documentary. Hot coffee. Go watch that documentary, M. It’s about more than this case. Everybody that learns about this case does a complete 180, as I hope you have. Have you changed your mind about this case? Are you now sympathetic to Stella Liebeck • • • • the rest of her life? She got angry letters from people. She got harassed. Her daughter talked about it felt like just constant bullying until she died in, I believe it was 2004, she never fully recovered. She was harassed by people influenced by the media to believe that she was a freeloading • • scheming person • • and nothing could be further than the truth. • • She was harmed • severely. She didn’t hire an attorney. She asked for just the money. She was out of pocket. No, no pain and suffering. McDonald slapped her in the face time and time again. No to 18 • no to 90, no to 250, walked themselves into the courtroom, let all this information out, and the jury said, enough is enough. You are hurting people in the name of business. You are either too lazy or too greedy to change your ways. This has to stop, and we’re going to punish you. And everybody I talked to agrees with this. • • • • So what happened? How did we all come to believe something so wrong? How are we so • • erroneous in our understanding of the facts? • • That’s the next part of the story. • • It doesn’t end here. • • So I’m going to ask you to stick with me a little bit more, so we can understand how this case became the poster child for a big business movement to try to prevent people from suing companies. All right, that’s where we’re going next. We’ve done the case. Let’s talk about the history of something called tort reform. What is a tort? A tort is a wrong that you have done to me, that is not criminal. Like if you come up and punch me in the face. You have committed a tort, and you have also committed a crime. You have committed battery on me, which is a tort, maybe assault and battery, and a crime usually some sort of battery or assault as well. The criminal part is what the state is going to prosecute you for, and it’s all about punishment. We don’t want people to do this. We’re going to punish, punish, punish, and lock you up in jail, and that sort of stuff. The tort side is, • • you have harmed me, and you need to make me whole. • • So McDonald’s committed the tort of gross negligence. Negligence is, you have a duty to be careful. To me, you breached that duty, you weren’t careful. Your breach of that duty caused • • me m • • harm, • • • • therefore you need to make me whole. That’s negligence. There’s lots of other torts. There’s assault and false imprisonment and stuff like that, but negligence is usually what you’re talking about when you talk about tort reform. • • • So tort reform is the concept, the idea that big business sold that said, hey, there’s these crazy runaway juries. We need to put caps on the awards that they can give because they’re being emotionally manipulated by evil trial attorneys. • • • • Now, you may be thinking I can hear you thinking now, wait a second. You’re an attorney. Why should I trust you? You’re right don’t trust me. I’ll tell you why you can kind of trust me a little bit. First, I was never a trial attorney, m I practiced FDA regulatory law. • • Administrative, uh, • • • law is my specialty. That’s what I’m published in, and that was my practice for five years. Right. • • • • • • It’s nerdy, but I love it. • • • • Second, um, • • • you can go researched all of this stuff yourself. Everything I’m about to tell you about how this case got used by, um, let’s be honest, republicans and business to try to trick people is 100% true. It is extremely well documented from • • • multiple sources. • • So here’s the history. • • • • • • • • • • Everything starts. For the purposes of this discussion with the 7th amendment in the bill of rights, which reads as follows in suits at common law, where the value and controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. And no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law. So what does that mean in suits at common law? So common law is the law that has evolved over hundreds of years, ever since the magna carta way back in the day in England, • • and it was brought over from England to the colonies and incorporated into our law via the constitution. • • And it is basically everything you have come to known about • • • civil, uh, law, torts and all of that, and how courts operate. It’s been modified, a lot of it has been codified into statutes. But what this is saying is, • • when you’re suing somebody and the value shall exceed $20. So in cases where there’s real money, because back then that was real money, • • • the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. So • • • • • • • you have a right to a trial by jury, and then it says, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United states. So the jury is the final arbiter on the facts of the case. • • • Facts like, • • did they run a red light? Were they speeding? • • How much were they damaged? Importantly, how much were you hurt? That is a fact that a jury finds. And here in the 7th amendment, it’s telling you that that fact, when it is found by a jury, can’t be otherwise reexamined in any court • • • • other than according to the rules of the common law. So any reexamination that was in place back then, which is very little, • • um, or any exceptions to jury trials that were in place back in the common law, still apply. • • • • • Very little, very edge cases. • • • • So flash forward to now, this still applies, but for the 7th amendment, it applies only to federal cases when you’re suing somebody in federal court, • • • • um, • • • • because • • • • of a whole background we won’t get into. The 7th amendment is one of the amendments that has yet been decided upon by the supreme court to apply to the states. • • • • • • There’s a case coming up called Winnett v. Frank in the western district of Texas, a federal case that addresses that question, should the 7th amendment apply to the states? And they argue that the one time it was discussed back around the turn of the last century, uh, the court got it wrong, because they are not operating under modern jurisprudence, • • uh, where • • you should apply the 7th amendment to the state. So that’s an interesting case coming up. Keep your eye on Winnett v. Frank. • Um, but for now, it doesn’t apply to the states. So every state wanted this, • • everybody recognized how important it is to have an independent jury. That is the final decider effects. No judge can come in and overrule them. Nobody can pass, uh, • • a special law saying in this particular case, we congress, find that these are the facts. No, that’s the jury. • • And so every state put a jury provision into their constitution as well, because the 7th doesn’t apply to the states, or didn’t back then. • • • • So • • • • under all states, you usually have, it depends on what their constitution says. But you have a right to trial by jury, and the jury is the finder of fact. • • • And big business • • • and organizations that want power • • • • do not like that. • • Why is that? Why don’t they want that? Isn’t it the right thing to do? The founding fathers thought it was so important, they made an entire amendment just about your right to trial by jury. • • So here’s why. Business and powerful people don’t like that. • • • They can • • • capture • • • • lawmakers, they can bribe them. Um, we don’t call it bribing. We call them lobbyists, and whining and dining, and taking them on fact finding trips. • • • • • • • So they can bribe them, right? • • Money in politics. They can whine and dine them. Let’s be polite. They can whine and dine congressman. They can whine and dine, uh, the executive branch. It’s harder to do, but let’s face it, they do it. They either do it directly, or they contribute to their election campaigns. Look at the money that trump got and disappeared out of his election funds. They can whine and dine judges, in the form of, many judges have to get nominated • • • • • at, ah, the federal level, at local level, a lot of them get elected, so they’ll just give money to your campaign. At the federal level, there’s going to be politics involved. There’s going to be, you better nominate this judge. Because he’s my favorite guy. So they’re going to have your back, right? So there is capture of government by big business in • • • every branch, • • • • except in the jury room. • • • • They can’t whine and dine the juries, because if they try it, they will go to prison. • • • • • • • • • They don’t like that. They don’t want to control 95% of our lives, 95% of governance in this country. They want 100%. • • • • And so • • that is why, • • • • • when we flash forward, • uh, they start trying to come up with ways to get around any sort of jury decisions they don’t like. Back in 1986, this is, uh, six years before the coffee spill, an organization was created called ATRA, at r a. • • And it stood for american tort reform association. • • • And it was founded by 300 of the biggest companies in the United states. Oil and gas, pharma, chemical insurance, tobacco was huge, • • medical insurance, and especially doctors associations. • Everybody was in on forming ATRA, and the goal of ATRA was to • • • enact tort reform. Tort reform is, hey, we need to reform the tort system. • • • • • As I said before, these judgments are getting out of control, so we need to cap these. But they had a problem. How do we sell this to Americans? How do we take away their one fundamental right to keep themselves whole without them knowing it? So what they did is they funneled money through law firms, especially the tobacco companies, paid their law firms to then funnel money into what are called astroturf organizations. You may have heard the term astroturf before. • • • Astroturf is the fake grass that professional, uh, • • sports teams will use on their fields. And • • the way it’s used here is • • it’s a play on words of a grassroots organization. When citizens spontaneously sprout up these organizations, they’re called grassroots organizations. They’re common people rising up to do, uh, what we should do to, uh, push for change in our government. So ATRA created a whole bunch of fake • grassroots organizations, astroturf organizations with names like citizens Against • • Lawsuit of Abuse, • • americans for Frivolous Lawsuit Reform. • This is going on • • pre Stella lieback to give you an idea of the lengths to which • • big business, through ATRA and other organizations would go to lie to Americans. Because believe me when I say they knew this McDonald’s case was an utter lie, just like you know now. And they ran campaigns based on it anyway. But even before Stella, they were already lying. Here is Ronald Reagan, president of the United States at the time in 1986, giving a speech. To who? • • To ATRA. And this is the case that he decides to talk about.

Speaker D

In California, a man was using a public telephone booth to place a call. An alleged drunk driver careened down the street, lost control of her car, and crashed into the phone booth. It’s no surprise that the injured man sued, but you might be startled to hear whom he sued. • The telephone company and associated firms. • • • That’s right.

Speaker A

Wow. • • Mansu’s phone booth company because a drunk driver hit him while he’s in their phone booth. Sounds crazy, right? Well, I hope by now you’re somewhat skeptical of politicians, big business, big organizations seeking more power, because, of course, he was lying through a mission. The facts he said were true. • • A woman hit him while he was in the phone booth. He sued the phone company. Here’s what Reagan didn’t tell the people of America. He didn’t tell them that the phone booth company knew that this phone booth was dangerous because it had been hit dozens of times before by cars not properly navigating that corner. • • • • Does that change your mind? Are we seeing a pattern here of lying? Two they had not repaired this, uh, phone booth sufficiently from the last time it was damaged, and the door wouldn’t open when he tried to get out because witnesses testified and he testified that he saw this car coming, and he tried to get out of the booth, and the door wouldn’t open. • • • And they knew that that thing had been hit and hit and hit and replaced. New ones in booth went in, and they were not maintaining it, and they were putting it in a dangerous spot. Is your mind changed now? Is this a pattern? • • • And he lost a leg, • • • so of course he sued the phone booth company. You don’t put a commonly used device where you’re locking yourself in a closet on a corner where that device has been hit by dozens of cars and think that it’s not going to happen again. There was no poster on the booth, • • there was nothing to indicate, hey, don’t use this if you see cars coming or check the doors. They knew there was problems. • • • So • • Reagan lied to America about this, uh, and ah, lots of other things. If you’re familiar with reagan, he lied about tons of stuff. That’s 86, that’s six years before stella. Uh, and it’s not really sinking in. They’re not making headway, they’re not getting congress to do anything at the federal level. They’re not passing a lot of laws at the state level. So they’re looking around for a case. And then this McDonald’s case comes out in 1994, and if you forgive the pun, this case falls into their laps. • • Um, at the time, george bush is the rising star of the conservative movement. George Bush Jr. Is running for governor of Texas. • • • • You may remember Carl rove, he was helping bush, he was working for bush, uh, in his campaign to be elected governor. And at the same time, carl rove is working for Philip morris. Now where have we heard of that company before? Oh, that’s right, big tobacco, who had been a big participant in a founding company in ATRA. So Karl rove sees a great opportunity here. Tort reform is gaining traction, especially with this McDonald’s case, and uh, • • • • • the constant lying. Uh, you heard reagan, and you heard what was portrayed about this case, right? Carl rove says, if I can get bush to run on tort reform, I can get daddy Philip morris to give bush money. Because Philip morris will benefit greatly. There’s a lot of smokers in Texas, and if I can limit damages for Philip morris by getting bush into office, I’m going to make money coming and going. So • • • call Carl rove evil, uh, mean, the dark sith lord, whatever you want to call him, but don’t call him stupid, because he figured this out pretty quickly. And sure enough, like the puppet master he is, he got George bush to parrot the talking points of ATRA immediately. So that’s what we have. Uh, we’re going to listen to bush on the campaign trail, • • • • running, ah, for governor. Here we go.

Speaker D

Too many good docs are getting out of business. • • • Too many OBGYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.

Speaker A

Let’s ignore the doctors practicing love of women. But that’s him, uh, speaking to a crowd of doctors. And the crowd went wild. Right? We want to prevent • • • patients, uh, • • from suing OBGYNs when they kill or maim your unborn babies. • •

Speaker D

And he kept going, we’re a letitia society, everybody’s suing. It seems like there are too many lawsuits in america.

Speaker A

And when he was elected, he delivered on his promise, and paid off his, uh, corporate overlords.

Speaker D

And so it’s with great pleasure that I sign a cap on punitive damages • • that will add certainty to the business climate. • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

Certainty to the business climate. And there you have it. We want to be able to do the math. We’re philip morris, we’re OB joanne’s. We’re McDonald’s, we’re • • ford pinto makers. We want to be able to do the math and say, • um, if I screw up this many times a year, it’s going to cost me this much, no more than this. • • So I just have to be that safe. That’s all I care about. And then anybody else, um, that, uh, I heard I don’t care about, because I’ve done the math. It’s on my spreadsheet as a cost of doing business. That’s what they want. • • Here’s john kasich, during the same period of time, trying to • • • convince, um, • • • people that • • we, um, • need tort reform at the federal level. • •

Speaker D

The lady goes through a fast food.

Speaker A

Restaurant, puts coffee in her lap, burns her legs, and sues, and gets a big settlement.

Speaker D

That in and of itself is enough.

Speaker A

To tell you why we need to have tort reform. • • • • Of m course, referencing stella’s case, • • • • • getting getting the facts completely right. Lady poured coffee on her lap by accident, sued and won. That’s why we need tort reform. • • • • • You see what they’re doing? He knew what he was doing there. He was lying to you, he was lying to all of us. • • • And of course, it wasn’t just a, uh, one pronged approach. It wasn’t just politicians. They ran ads. Here are some of the ads that ATRA ran through their grassroots organizations, so that people thought it was citizens that were getting pissed off about these judgments. These judgments that are making our premiums go up, these judgments that are making the cost of living increase. At least that’s what they were told. Here’s an ad that has a bunch of firefighters and paramedics talking directly to you through the camera.

Speaker D

I didn’t take this job to sit around and worry about getting sued. If we don’t stop lawsuit abuse, I might not be able to do my job.

Speaker C

And my job just might be to save your life.

Speaker D

Join the jury against lawsuit abuse.

Speaker A

And here’s another ad you may recognize. • •

Speaker D

A woman was awarded $2.9 million in a lawsuit against McDonald’s. She spilled hot coffee on her lap while sitting in her car, and claimed it was too hot. Every day we hear about another outrageous lawsuit. Who pays? You do. Tell the legislature. We can’t afford another million dollar cup of coffee.

Speaker A

I mean, they’re good. You got to give it to them. They’re good. • • We can’t afford another million dollar cup of coffee. • • • Whoever came up with that taglined, uh, earned • • their evil. How do you sleep with yourself at night? Paycheck. Uh, and the facts were true. They said, oh, she spilled her coffee and claimed it was too hot. Absolutely true. The emphasis on the word claimed implies that she was wrong. But • • as written on the page, that’s a true statement. She did claim it’s too hot, and she was proven, uh, right at Ah trial. I dare that announcer. I dare the politician who wrote that and supported it. I dare anybody to pour that coffee on their lap and go through eight days in the burn unit with multiple skin graft operations. But why quibble about the facts? They weren’t lying. So you can’t sue them over those ads. Right? Right. I’m hoping by now you are seeing the pattern • • • that people in power, these corporations, they didn’t want to control • • just the legislature. They didn’t want to control the executive and the judges. The elections, at least for the judges, they didn’t want to control 90% • • of • • the governing process in our lives. They wanted 100%. They wanted to get inside the jury box. And they couldn’t do it through lobbying and whine and dying and bribing them. So they did this instead. They waited around for six years, from 86 to 92. In fact, eight years until 94, until this judgment came along with this ATRA organization sort of building up and whispering in people’s ears, and if you’ll forgive the expression, it was like a gift from God, • • • • uh, and facts be damned. And the impact is, uh, to this day, • • • studied • • throughout academia on • • how to • • • lie, how to trick people to get what you want. Here is, uh, John llewellyn. He is a professor of communication at Wake Forest talking about • • this case. • •

Speaker D

This story is the most widely misunderstood story in America. The public perception of it is stella Leibak won a lottery. She bought the coffee, she spilled it on herself, and now look, she’s a millionaire. When, of course, the facts are much more complicated than that.

Speaker A

Here’s a journalist and author commenting on the Reagan speech, uh, about the phone booth and the movement, the ATRA movement.

Speaker C

It was not the source of real humor, the way Reagan had portrayed it. So there are a lot of stories like that. For me not being a lawyer, I am a journalist. And I felt like journalists had just really not done a good job of covering, and that they had fallen for lots of public relations bruises that they should know better about. • •

Speaker A

And here’s Stella Liebeck in her own words.

Speaker C

I was not in it for the money. I was in it because I want them to bring the temperature down so that other people will not go through the same thing I did.

Speaker A

Thankfully, it never worked at the federal level. • • • • Congress passed an act in 95 that would have enacted federal tort reform, and bill clinton vetoed it for these exact reasons. And so ATRA and big business shifted their focus to focus entirely on the states, • • and it worked. • • • • • • Here’s, uh, a few guys, uh, in the street being interviewed about what tort caps means to them.

Speaker E

Caps on damages, I think is something that exists • • • • • • when there is misuse in the system. So • • I would trust, just as someone has the right to access the courts, uh, there should be a body overseeing it and regulating it. • • • • And • • that’s what a cap is. A cap is public oversight on abuse. Yeah, it’s a limit for how much money you can get from the tobacco company that killed your wife because of lung cancer, or, • • I don’t know. You can only sue your doctor for so much, right, because there’s abuse. And so you have to set a limit.

Speaker A

Because there’s abuse, you have to set a limit. • • • It’s like the big business was the puppeteer, and we were the puppets. So people called their congressmen. And now in alaska, florida, mississippi, texas, alabama, tennessee, wisconsin, south carolina, oklahoma, nebraska, lots of places, there were tort reform packages passed to favor big business, and to limit your ability to get compensated. I’ll give you a few examples of • • • these laws harming people. Okay? So my premise at the beginning is, if you believe things based on insufficient evidence, or erroneous evidence, you can hurt yourself or other people. We all supported this tort reform, and this is what happened. So there’s the case of colin goreley. Nebraska couple was pregnant with twins. And this was back in 92 or three, • • • • • • uh, before the leibank judgment, but after some tort reform efforts, well, they sued, and the tort reform got passed. And by the time they sued, there was tort reform in nebraska. So they were pregnant with twins. Mother started noticing a lack of movement, and she goes to her OBGYN, and her OB checks it out. Listens with a, uh, stethoscope, says you’re fine, go home. The standard of care at the time would have been do an ultrasound. And if she had done an ultrasound, she would have seen that there was only one placenta, not two. And in those cases, • • you are at extreme risk of something called twin to twin transfusion syndrome, where one twin starts sucking the resources away from the other twin, and you would need to deliver these babies as soon as possible. But she said, no, go home. I’m not doing an ultrasound. Mom. Being a mom after a day or two more, is like, no, there’s something really wrong. So she goes back, but sees a partner of the original doctor. That doctor does the ultrasound, finds the problem, and says, get to the emergency room immediately, we need to do operation. Uh, • • • • he goes there, and whichever doctors on call should have the standard of care was do an emergency c section. Within ten minutes of her arrival, at the hospital, the doctor waited 2 hours. • • All the while, • • • one of her twins is starved of oxygen. That’s colin. Okay. Colin is born with cerebral palsy. He’s nearly blind. He has to spend, uh, the first five years or so of his life in a wheelchair, trying to learn how to walk. He spends so much time in a wheelchair, his bones are deformed, he can’t speak properly, he’s developmentally delayed. He will never grow up. • • • He will never become, uh, competent to take care of himself. Adult male he is going to have to have somebody take care of him for the rest of his life. The other twin, happy, normal boy, plays little league, going to high school, going to college, all of that. • • • • So they sue, • • • • uh, they talk to experts, and absolutely if the doctors had done what they should have now imagine you are this parent. • • • • This woman has been interviewed multiple times, and it’s heartbreaking • • because she does what every parent • • • thinks of when they find their child in a situation • • that is sad, and they think, what could I have done? Is there anything like, uh, she, uh, would give her life to go back and relive that moment and ask the question or insist on the ultrasound. But • • she’s not a doctor. She doesn’t know. She’s a brand new mother. The doctor said, go home, you’re fine. So she did. • • • And that negligence, gross negligence, • • in my opinion, but just call it negligence, hurt her son. • • • So now • • they have to do the math. We don’t know how long he’s going to live, but he’s going to live to be an adult. • • • • And they came up with talking to the experts and doing the math out to get him what he needs. He needs just daily therapy, durable medical equipment, wheelchairs and crutches, um, eye care, • • special, ah, • • education. • • And when his parents die, and he is all by himself, he needs people to take care of him because he won’t be able to live on his own. And they come up with $12 million for his entire life, which if you project that out to 60 or 70 or however long, that’s not a ton of money per year. • • • • • Ah, especially if you have to pay for all of these things. So they ask for 12 million. The jury came back and said, we think it’s 5.6 million. • • • And the girlies said, okay, if we scrimp and we save, we can make that work, we’ll go with 5.6. • • • What the jury didn’t know, and what the girlies may have known, but we’re hoping they could avoid, is that nebraska had passed tort reform. • • And the judge came in after the jury rendered its decision and said, okay, the jury found as a fact that you should get 5.6. But our state legislature has passed a law that says you’re only going to get 1.2 million, 1.25,000,001 fourth of what you need, one fourth of the minimum, like scrimp and. Save what you need to take care of your son for the rest of his life. Because this doctor and her partner messed up • • • royally. • • And not to mention the doctor had been sued many times before and found negligent, and because the caps were in place, didn’t have to pay a lot, so she kept being able to practice. We’re going to ignore all of that, because that’s probably not introduced as evidence at the trial. Okay, then • • • dad loses his job, and in america again, we don’t have free health care. Your job is tied to your insurance. • • And they couldn’t get new insurance to cover colin. And I bet if you’ve lived through the obamacare debates, you know the phrase that comes into play here. Colin had a, uh, preexisting condition, • • • • • and nobody would insure him. So now not only do they not have enough money to take care of him, they don’t have any insurance for emergencies or anything, any of this care. And colin has to go on medicare, which means who’s paying for colin now? The very voters who thought they were doing the right thing by calling their congressman. Because ronald reagan and george bush and carl rove and john kasich and weird al yankovic convinced them I’m sorry, weird al, I love you, but • • • maya culpa, please. • • • Convinced them to call their lawmakers and insist that tort reform be enacted in their state. The girlies had never heard of it. They may have even voted for it. • • But it hurt them • • • • • in real measurable ways, • • and it could hurt you. You need to look into this, because your insurance company is lobbying daily to try to limit these things. There’s other ways they’re trying to limit, too, and it hasn’t stopped. That’s just one example. • • • • In 2012, a couple of hailstorms hit the, uh, rio grande valley in texas, • • and insurers were paying low ball payments. You’ve dealt with insurance companies, right? Your house gets smacked by hell storms, you’re covered. They come out and they go, I know that every single contractor you have talked to says you need 100 grand to fix this damage. We think you need 50. • • Um, here you go. If you don’t like it, feel free to sue us. • • • So people did. • • • People sued by the storm. It was a storm of lawsuits that hit, and all of a sudden, what do you know? Politicians in texas started to call for tort reform. More tort reform. They started calling lawyers. Instead of calling them ambulance chasers, they started calling them storm chasers. Like I said, these evil bastards • • • are pretty smart. They’re the ones who came up with it’s not an inheritance tax, it’s a death tax. And all of a sudden, people who aren’t going to be affected by any sort of inheritance tax whatsoever are outraged that there’s some sort of inheritance tax. Well, it’s not ambulance chasers, it’s storm chasers. The texas senate introduces a bill to stop these lawsuits. • • • • • These insurance companies are not paying what they owe people. And the legislatures are tricking people into convincing them that somehow that’s the fault of crazy lawsuits. • • It was called the consumer protection bill. Can you believe it? It was marketed as saying, hailstorm litigation is the newest form of lawsuit abuse. That’s an exact quote. • • • And in addition to limiting these lawsuits, the caps, it also had this little clause buried in it that said, insurance companies don’t have to. You don’t win. You don’t win if you sue this insurance company. You don’t win unless you can prove to a jury that the insurance company, quote, knowingly • • • either failed to pay a claim, or inadequately paid a claim. You have to go to court and prove that they knowingly did it, that they didn’t just accidentally do it. And if you’ve ever thought about what it takes to prove that somebody knowingly did something, you understand what a big hurdle that is. • • You need to find emails, and memos and text messages that say, • • let’s not pay these, let’s underpay these. Do you think they’re going to put that in writing? My first day in law school, in my civil procedure class, my professor said, the number one rule in advising your clients is never put anything in writing that you don’t want as the headline on the new york times. • • • • Um, and people know this in business, they don’t put this sort of stuff in writing. Sometimes they do. I mean, see, for example, the fox news, uh, texts and tweets and emails that have come out about, uh, the, uh, insurrection and trump. Sometimes they’re stupid enough to put it in writing, um, but most of the time, they’re not. • • Fortunately, • that bill died in the house, but every single time it comes up, they tried again two years later. Um, uh, • • • • • • they being big business. And the GOP tries to limit your ability to recover damages for how you were injured, because their big business overlords don’t like to pay you. • • • And so it could be you next time, to this day. So a couple of epilogues here to this day. • • • • A grassroots fake organization called the institute for legal reform. If you search for tort reform, history of tort reform on the internet, they’re the number one or number two hit. And uh, on their website, they have a timeline of tort reform, and how noble this effort has been. And on that timeline, for 1994, there is an entry that says, a new mexico jury awards a woman nearly $3 million in a lawsuit against McDonald’s, in which she claimed she was injured after spilling a company’s hot coffee in her lap. That’s, ah, an exact quote. To this day, they’re using this case. Even with the internet being able to educate people about this. • • One last note, • • McDonald’s now serves its coffee ten degrees cooler. • • You now have • • • 1213, 14, 15 seconds to avoid a third degree burn instead of three. So stella, uh, I know you’re not with us anymore. Thank you for putting up with the bullying. Thank you for having the weight of the nation mocking you. You did affect change. • • And hopefully • • my listeners will learn from you and understand • • • • that large organizations, like big businesses that are seeking power, any power organization, and yes, that includes religion, • • • • will lie to you. They will tell you things like, there are preteen kids getting surgeries for transgender operations. They will lie to you and say that there are babies being born alive and killed for abortions. They will lie to you to tell you that any number of things is going on if it convinces you to support them in their quest for power and money. • • • • So I hope you enjoyed this. This has been a very deep dive. Most of my episodes won’t be this long, but I wanted to get practice as being a podcaster. I wanted to find something that was a neutral subject that I think we can all agree on. And I’ll close this • • • with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, • • • • uh, one of everybody’s favorites. Founding Fathers, especially conservatives. • • • • I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution. • • That’s Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Payne in 1789. • • • • I hope you come back for episode two. I think it’ll be a little more, uh, religious focused. Please feel free to leave comments, email, uh, • me at info at the crossexaminer.net with any ideas, questions, or suggestions or criticisms, and I look forward to seeing you next time. Thanks a lot. • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

This has been the Cross Examiner Podcast, the Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider subscribing. See you soon. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •