Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
You better finish your little
cafe latte there, they'll
never let you in with it.
Why not?
'cause they don't allow
outside drinks into the movie.
Well, we'll just see if
we can't get around that.
Pardon me. Excuse us.
Oh!
Ahh!
Coffee!
And then,
there is this tonight.
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.
I spoke to a lawyer,
we're suing for millions.
Suing, what for?
The coffee was too hot!
I've been thinking of
quitting work here,
And suing big companies
for a living instead.
Suing has become a popular
american pastime,
And I'd like to get in on
some of that easy money.
A college student
sued his college, because his
roommate partied too much.
A florida man sued because
he got a bad haircut.
Of course, many of
these lawsuits fail.
But you might win.
Stella liebeck did, because
of a cup of coffee.
Every minute they waste on
this frivolous lawsuit,
They're not able to waste on
other frivolous lawsuits.
Like "ooh, my coffee was
too hot!" it's coffee!
The woman, she purchased
the coffee, and she
spilled it on herself.
I mean, it wasn't like the
mcdonald's employee took
the coffee, threw it on her.
Now that in itself, then she
would have had a lawsuit.
It's just, people just are
greedy, and want money, and
they'll do anything to get it.
I think many americans
have a, a fundamentally
wrong perception
Of the civil
justice system.
They think that the
system is flooded with
frivolous lawsuits.
Jackpot justice!
Predatory
trial lawyers at it again.
Junk lawsuits
over frivolous injuries...
Lawsuit
lottery, and jackpot justice,
and frivolous lawsuits.
These were bumper-sticker
phrases that were easy
to market,
And use to move public
sentiment away from a strong
civil justice system.
The whole issue is, the
industry does not want
the public, generally,
To have access to the courts.
So, there's all of
these devices and methods
that businesses use
To keep consumers out
of the courtroom.
My mother,
at 79, was very active.
She drove, she drove well,
She very seldom
dropped anything,
She very seldom
spilled anything,
And so that, uh,
for her age,
At 79 years old, I thought
she was, she was remarkable.
And she had been working
full-time just about,
Until about a week before
this all happened.
My name is charles allen.
I'd like to introduce my
wife, judy, and her mother,
stella liebeck.
The woman who was burned by a
cup of scalding hot mcdonald's
coffee three years ago.
She cannot speak due to a
confidentiality agreement
that she signed,
But judy and I have
no such agreement.
I am just xxtoded at
how many people are
aware of this case,
And how many people have a
distorted view of the case.
It doesn't matter where I am,
or who I speak to, they "oh,
yeah, I know all about that."
Well, what do you know?
I got this picture in my mind
that she actually pulled up,
Maybe took the coffee,
and dumped it.
I think she went through
the drive-through.
She was driving the car.
Tried to drive and drink
it at the same time.
And then it might have
popped open and it
spilled on her lap.
Had it between her legs.
Spilled in her lap,
it was too hot.
And then sued mcdonald's
For millions of dollars.
And I'll say, "what would
you say if I told you
she wasn't driving?"
"oh no, she was driving!"
"what would you say if I told
you that's the wrong report,
and she was not driving?
"she was in the parking lot.
"she was in the passenger
seat. My nephew was driving."
So we had just dropped off
my uncle at the airport,
And went to the nearest
mcdonald's that I knew of,
and this was it.
So, pulled up, she ordered
coffee with her value meal,
And I knew she liked
cream and sugar in it.
There was no place in,
in my 1989 ford probe.
Everything sloped. There were
no cup holders in that car.
Did I get cream
and sugar also?
It's in the bag.
It's in the bag?
Yeah.
Thank you.
We pulled out of here
knowing that we...
I needed to get organized
if I was going to be
eating and driving,
And I knew she wanted
to put her cream and
sugar in the coffee,
So, pretty much pulled
right here, almost
exactly in this spot,
And handed her her coffee,
or had already done that,
And so we just went
about organizing,
And a short period after
that, she started screaming.
Wanted to get the top off
to put cream and sugar in,
So I put it between my knees
to steady it with this hand,
Trying to get the top off,
and it just went "whoo."
Are you going to
show me the burns?
Yeah.
What?
Yeah. Would that
change your mind at all?
Wow.
Yes, if I saw injuries like
that, I would definitely take
a different view of it
From what I hear
from the media.
Oh, my gosh!
Excruciating pain.
Uh, I was burned so
severely that, uh, they
didn't think I would live.
I'm a nurse, and I
was horrified
At the type of injuries
that she had sustained.
Um, the skin grafts,
and the pieces that
were still ongoing.
So it was kind of a shocker,
'cause it's one thing to hear,
but it's another thing to see.
So it was kind of, uh,
"oh my goodness."
We could see
the extent of this injury,
so we started saying
We need to ask mcdonald's
to pay for this.
Under no circumstances
would she ever sue or
do anything like that.
We thought that the company
would take care of medical,
and everything would be done.
And chuck and I wrote
the letter to mcdonald's.
The very first
thing we said is, "your
machine must be too hot,
"so look at it, and
fix it, if it's broken."
This must be
an aberration.
"it must be
an aberration. But if
it is your, your policy,
"we ask you to worry
about that policy,
"because it...You do not
want to have this happen
to just one person."
And then clearly it can't have
happened to just one person.
We were extremely surprised
when mcdonald's did not
Offer more than $800 on
what was at that point a
$10,000 medical problem.
It's one of those things
that's really like,
If you ask people what the top
ten issues they care about,
You know, the economy,
healthcare, education,
The civil justice system never
even makes the top twenty.
It's just not in, in most
people's radar screen.
Until something bad
happens to them,
And then the first thing that
most americans think is that
they should find a lawyer.
When you are hurt by somebody,
harmed in some way,
And the person or the company
that harms you is negligent,
Or does this intentionally,
You have a right to hold
that wrongdoer accountable.
And those are the
civil courts that handle
those kinds of cases,
And that is our
civil justice system.
It's a fundamental right
that we have. It stems
from the constitution,
From the bill of rights.
♪ hey there, kiddos
the lesson today
♪ is about our constitution
and the government way
♪ lawmaking powers
divided in three
♪ forefathers had their say
♪ that is the american way ♪
Our judicial branch
of government is one of the
very few places where
An average person can
actually go and confront
a big corporation
On somewhat of a level
playing field, you know.
The other two branches of
government are dominated
by money, and politics.
The judicial branch is
not, because you can't
wine and dine juries.
In the
courts, it's you versus
general motors.
Or it's you versus, you
know, bank of america.
And if you can present your
information and your complaint
in an effective way,
You have just as much
likelihood of winning
as general motors does.
There's no other part of the
government where that's true.
I got involved in
the liebeck case by way of
invitation from reed morgan,
Who was lead council,
And once I met reed, and
met stella liebeck, and
looked at the evidence,
You know, they had
my full attention.
Because the coffee in question
was brewed at temperatures
That would approximate the
temperature in your radiator
After you drive from,
you know, from your
office to home.
In discovery, we learned
that in the franchise
directives and manuals,
That the franchisee was
required to follow,
That they had to have
their, their waters at
certain temperatures.
And they said that the holding
temperature should be 180
fahrenheit to 190 fahrenheit.
Hot liquid, whether
it's coffee, or water,
Or any liquid like that,
If it's in the range of
180 degrees or hotter,
If it is in contact with
your skin for more than
just a few seconds,
It will produce
very serious burns.
If you're lucky, it'll
produce a second-degree burn,
If you're not as lucky,
you will get third-degree,
or full-thickness burns
Requiring skin grafting
and surgery.
And if
you add up the, uh, burn
history of mcdonald's
Since January of 1983
until March of uh, '92,
It's over 700 burn cases,
and that doesn't surprise
you, does it?
I can't say that I'm surprised
or not surprised. I'm, I'm
glad the number's not higher.
All right.
I'm, I'm really pleased that
that's not more than that.
I thought that
was, that was terrible
That he was so indifferent
about it, you know.
Uh, even if it was just
one person, that's enough
to pay attention to.
I mean, uh, one
person that spoke up.
I'm sure there's more
than that, that was
damaged with a hot coffee.
But, uh, it's so easy to
burn at that temperature,
And they were so
indifferent about it.
If you were to take
a sip of that coffee,
Enough to where you could
feel it go down your throat,
You can't do that at 180
to 190 degrees, can you,
because you'll be burned.
You better not do that,
you will get burned.
We talked about different
percentages of how much was
her fault versus, you know,
How much was mcdonald's,
And we finally came to assign
20% fault to mrs. Liebeck,
Because she had initially
spilled the coffee,
And we assigned 80% of the,
uh, blame to mcdonald's,
Because they had a
very long history of
people being injured,
And they were so adamant that
it was such a trivial thing,
That they weren't going
to bother to do anything
Other than just continue
to rake in the money
on their coffee sales.
And the fact that it
was their own records
Really damned mcdonald's
as far as I was concerned,
Because it was very
obvious that they knew
there was a problem,
And they were ignoring
it completely.
Just totally disregarding
the consumers' safety.
We looked at the
coffee sales on a daily basis,
And we figured about two
days' worth of coffee sales.
We thought that that was,
you know, a fair amount,
And punitive damages we, uh,
assessed at $2.7 million.
Punitive damages are
very rare, and they
have a specific purpose,
Which is to essentially change
the behavior of the wrongdoer.
Only way you can get
the attention of a big
company would be,
To, uh, make punitive
damages against them,
And this was a very small
punitive damage, we thought.
Even though the amount
was reduced later,
I think the initial
award certainly got
everybody's attention,
Not necessarily in
a favorable way.
♪ I sued starbucks,
'cause I spilled a
frappuccino in my lap,
♪ and brr it was cold
♪ I'm gonna sue, sue,
yes I'm gonna sue
♪ sue, sue
The media in corporate
america turned a disadvantage
into an advantage,
An extreme advantage,
as to how they dealt with
this case and its aftermath.
I mean, mrs. Liebeck
became a joke, the jury
function became a joke,
Notwithstanding of the fact
that we had twelve good,
Hardworking new mexico
citizens on that jury,
And it was a
unanimous verdict.
But they did a masterful
job of taking this,
this simple verdict
And turning it upside
down, as though people
like mrs. Liebeck
Are trying to take
economic advantage of,
of the whole legal system.
The tort
reform groups, they love
the mcdonald's coffee case,
This was a perfect case
for them, because it looked
like it was frivolous.
I had heard
the word "tort reform"
before my mother was injured,
But I, I had never really
understood what that meant.
A tort is, uh, a pastry,
as far as I know.
It's also some
type of funding
That the federal government
has done, uh, for bailout
money, I believe.
Oh, I thought
that was tarp.
No, I think it's tort.
Uh...
I have no
idea what a tort is.
A tort is a piece of...
It's a...I think a tort
is a piece of bread
That looks like a
hoagie roll, but
isn't a hoagie roll.
So a tort is a harm,
it's, it's a, when
someone commits a tort,
They have harmed
you in some way.
I've heard the statement,
"tort reform."
Do you know
what it means?
No.
Tort reform would mean
trying to clean up, the, the
logistics of suing people,
Or, or trying to make
it easier or harder.
I'm not quite sure which way
tort reform tends to work.
Well, tort reform is a term
drummed up by some of the
advertising people for the uh,
Business sector,
Which is, to limit the
likelihood that you
can bring a lawsuit.
It is, essentially, laws
that restrict people's
rights to go to court.
I don't think that the term...
I'm not going to say it.
I, I just won't say the
word "tort reform," the
phrase, that phrase,
Because, um, I don't
think that it, uh,
Is an accurate representation
of what's really going on.
Ralph nader calls it "tort
deform," so I guess reform is
in the eyes of the beholder.
But if you want to change a
system, which had become,
in the late 1970s,
Very, very pro-plaintiff
in the view of some,
If you want to change
it, usually the word
"reform" is used.
This big push to
publicize the mcdonald's case
Came in the midst of
an attempt to pass
federal legislation.
It was going to limit
the consumer's right
to go to court.
It meant that there were
going to be caps on damages,
That there were gonna be all
sorts of changes in the rules
Of what you could do in order
to bring a case into court.
And so there was this
humongous campaign
by industry,
Attempting to affect
juries, but also attempting
to affect senators.
And the mcdonald's case
became the poster child
For what's wrong
with people going to
court and suing.
We looked at
the congressional hearings
about the tort reform bill,
And we found that the
most common reference
to justify tort reform
Was the mcdonald's
coffee case.
There were not many
statistical studies.
The primary evidence was,
everybody knows the
mcdonald's coffee case,
Therefore we need tort reform.
If a lady goes to a fast food
restaurant, puts coffee in her
lap, burns her, her legs,
And sues and gets
a big settlement,
That in and of...Of itself
is enough to tell you why we
need to have tort reform.
And in fact what happened was,
it did pass the senate,
And, uh, president
bill clinton did veto it.
This legislation is
arcane, complex,
It has a lot of legalisms
and loopholes in it,
But the real fact is, it
could have a devastating
impact on innocent americans.
And so
what happened was,
Corporate america sort
of went to a plan b,
So they went to a lot
of state legislatures,
And asked the state
legislatures to pass laws
That would limit the rights
and remedies of individuals
in various ways.
And they were constantly
on the attack, because
they had so many pr firms
That they had hired to go
out and do their work in
the different states.
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.
One of the most
significant pr efforts
Was spearheaded by the
american tort reform
association,
Atra.
The american tort reform
association is a group of
several hundred businesses
And also colleges
and universities,
And I'm their general counsel.
And they are dedicated
to try to see
That there's a fair and
balanced legal system
in the United States.
The american
tort reform association
was formed in 1986
By about 300 major
corporations,
Insurance companies, chemical
companies, oil and gas,
pharmaceutical companies.
They were going to start
advocating for laws all
around the country
To limit the liability
of all their members.
And so they hired a pr
firm, and they came up
with these groups called
Citizens against
lawsuit abuse.
They were to give
the impression
That these were just
citizen groups that had
sprung up spontaneously.
Astroturf groups.
So they looked like they were
grassroots groups,
But they really had no people
in them, they were all run
through the pr firm.
But that's what citizens
against lawsuit abuse was.
The tobacco industry
was actually funding
a lot of this.
That they would
funnel money through a
washington, dc law firm
Called covington & burling,
That would then distribute
tobacco money
To some of these citizens
against lawsuit abuse groups.
Was there any distortions
by people in the media,
by politicians,
By people who
wanted tort reform?
Sometimes stories were
repeated, and repeated
over and over again,
It happens all the time,
That were not, uh, true, or
they were unfounded. I don't
think it was intentional.
Listen to just a few cases.
I hope I won't be repeating
some that maybe have already
been told to you.
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.
Now 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.
There's a telephone booth
on the corner of a very busy
intersection in los angeles,
And this guy was standing
inside, and he saw this
car coming right at him,
And he tried to get
out of the phone booth,
and the door stuck.
And the reason that
this was the fault of
the telephone company
Is that there'd been
lots of other cases
Where this telephone booth
had been hit by cars,
'cause it was in a very
dangerous position,
And it hadn't been
properly repaired, so
the guy couldn't get out!
And so he was hit
inside the phone booth.
He lost his leg. He
was extremely ill.
You know, it was not the
source of real humor the
way reagan had portrayed it.
So there were a lot
of stories like that.
For me, you know, not being
a lawyer, I'm 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 ruses
That they should
know better about.
There was even a story of
somebody taking a lawnmower
to trim a hedge,
And there was a lawsuit, and
actually it never occurred.
So there were some scare
tactics that really didn't
have basis in fact.
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.
And my job just might
be to save your life.
Join the
jury against lawsuit abuse.
It was supposedly just a
group of business people
and community leaders
Who were acting on their
own, when in fact,
It was a carefully
orchestrated campaign,
Orchestrated out of
washington, dc with the help
of people like karl rove,
Who had their own business and
financial interest in pushing
the agenda of tort reform,
And making it look
like it was a totally
spontaneous event.
Texas must end the junk
lawsuits that clog our courts
and threaten our producers.
In texas in the
mid '90s, you had karl rove,
And then-candidate
bush come along,
And see that there was a
real political advantage
To talking about
so-called tort reform.
Karl rove was, in the
early 1990s, a consultant
for phillip morris,
For the tobacco industry.
He was working for
phillip morris and bush
at the same time.
He was on the phillip
morris payroll. So he had a
lot of ties to these folks.
Rove saw that if he used
tort reform, and if his
candidates ran on tort reform,
It would make it that
much easier for him
To open the pockets of
the business community.
And then, once governor
bush was elected, uh, it
was katy bar the door.
They implemented all of the
things that interests like
insurance companies,
And the health care industry,
and others wanted in texas.
And so it's with great
pleasure that I sign a cap
on punitive damages,
That will add certainty
to the business climate.
And a lot of the people who
had been his biggest financial
backers in texas,
They followed him right to the
white house. So he kept going.
No one has ever been healed
by a frivolous lawsuit.
I urge the congress to pass
medical liability reform.
Our economy is held back by
irresponsible class actions,
and frivolous asbestos claims,
And I urge congress to pass
legal reforms this year.
Because lawsuits are
driving many good doctors
out of practice,
Leaving women in nearly
1500 american counties
without a single obgyn,
I ask the congress to
pass medical liability
reform this year.
He was
tort-reformer-in-chief.
He really brought the issue
to center stage in a way
nobody else had ever done.
Too many good docs are
getting out of business.
Too many obgyns aren't
able to practice their,
Their love with women
all across this country.
We're a litigious
society. Everybody's
suing, it seems like.
There are too many
lawsuits in america...
If you have the right
words that evoke your
whole system of thought,
And your way of
understanding an issue,
And when that language is
repeated over and over,
the brain changes.
The circuitry gets stronger,
and can become permanent.
In my line of work you gotta
keep repeating things over
and over and over again,
For the truth to sink in.
To kind of catapult
the propaganda.
So they would get their
message out there,
And then the public
would pressure their
local legislators
To enact caps on damages
and other kinds of
liability limits.
So there was a direct link
between the pr that was done,
And ultimately the
passage of laws.
That's
for everybody?
Yeah.
All right!
We got 16 candles we
have to put in here, because
you're 16 years old.
So pick up one.
This has to be the top.
Turn it around, so that you
have a hold of this part,
And then you're going
to put it in up there.
Any place you want.
Put it there.
Okay, now let me show
you what you need to do,
you need to take...
Don't laugh.
They're not, they're not gonna
laugh. Take a hold of it,
here I'll help you.
I had no
idea what tort reform was.
I had no idea that there
were caps on damages
here in nebraska,
Um, prior to colin's case.
Caps on damages,
I think, is something
that exists when there...
When there is misuse
in the system, so I,
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 uh,
And that's what a cap is.
A cap is, is public
oversight on abuse.
No, it's a, it's a limit
for how much money you
can get from, like,
The tobacco company that
killed your wife because
of lung cancer or...
Right.
I don't know, you can only
sue your doctor for so
much, right, isn't that...
Right, because there's
abuse, and so you have
to set a limit.
One of the most common
so-called tort reforms is
what's called caps on damages,
Or limits on the amount of
money that a jury or a judge
can award to somebody
After they've been hurt
and won their case.
Their opportunity to
get compensation is
strictly limited.
I, I want to be honest with
you, I'm not advocating caps
on malpractice awards.
Which I believe, uh,
I personally believe
Can be unfair to people
who've, uh, been
wrongfully harmed.
Wow, you're
a big helper.
I know that.
I was 36 weeks along, um,
Pregnant with
identical twin boys,
And I noticed the night
before my regularly scheduled
doctor's appointment,
That the movement...Normally
when I'd go to bed the,
The babies would be really
moving around a lot,
And I noticed that
they weren't moving
around very much,
And I just kind of felt
like, you know, this
is kind of weird.
And I, I'm going to the
doctor in the morning,
I'll talk to her about it.
And I went in, and I told her,
and she's like, well let's
listen to the heartbeats,
And she listened
to the heartbeats,
And, um, she said, you know,
the heartbeats are normal,
Every, you know, it
sounds, you know,
everything looks good.
And so, um,
I was reassured...
It's really important to
determine how many placentas,
When you're pregnant
with twins, that if
there's only one placenta,
Then it's a high-risk
pregnancy.
So when I went in with
my concern on Monday,
It should have been
immediately followed up
with an ultrasound,
And, you know,
a stress test.
And had they done that,
they would have seen
what was happening was
The twin-to-twin
transfusion syndrome,
Where one baby starts
getting everything, and the
other baby's getting nothing.
Um, the next day, the
movement was less,
And then the, the next day,
the movement was even less,
And I became, I started to
become really concerned,
And I called the doctor's
office. And, um, we're going
to see dr. Knolla's partner.
He said "come on, let's
go do an ultrasound."
And he showed the
heartbeat of one of the
babies, and it was so slow,
It was, like, almost
gonna stop.
And he said, you know,
"there's not a lot of fluid
around one of the babies,
"and we need to deliver
the babies right away."
Colin suffered, uh,
severe brain damage to
all areas of the brain.
They just said that it must
have been from a lack of
oxygen or, or whatever,
But they didn't really
say how it happened
or why it happened,
Or give us any
further background,
And I guess that kind of led
us to keep asking questions,
and keep looking for answers.
Well, I've got one son that's
perfectly normal, he's a,
you know, a normal child,
And I've got one son who has
severe brain damage, and they
were born at the same time.
You know, what happened here?
The gourleys also never
knew that before they went
to see dr. Knolla,
She'd been in court before.
Sued two other times,
both for malpractice.
According to court
records in 1987 and 1989,
Dr. Knolla was accused
of botching two pelvic
operations.
It appears both cases
were settled secretly,
but legally, out of court.
At trial, it
came out that the injury was
caused by a lack of blood flow
From the placenta
through the cord,
And oxygen depletion
of the brain for five
to eight minutes
Is what caused the damage.
So not knowing,
I mean looking back,
All that time was so
critical, you know.
It was, I mean had they
just, you know, delivered
him right away...
And the nurses testified
that the doctor had called
over to the hospital
And they'd had the or
prepared and ready, but
the doctors weren't there.
You know, you just start
thinking all these things,
And why didn't they do
an ultrasound on that
Monday, you know?
And then, you know,
I went through, for
about three years, of
"why didn't I just ask?"
You know, I kind
of blamed myself,
For a while, um,
you know,
but you, you just want
to change what happened,
And knowing that it
was preventable.
The economists at
the time said that he
would need $6 million,
At the time of the trial,
For him to have enough
money to take care of him
for the rest of his life.
All right, here we go.
In most instances
when you have a lawsuit where
a cap statute is involved,
The jury doesn't know
that there's a cap statute.
So if the jury renders an
award which is higher than
the cap statute,
The trial judge,
after the trial,
Then reduces the verdict
to the amount of the cap.
And so it actually,
it takes away the
power of the jury
To make a determination as to
what a fair and reasonable
amount should be for damages.
That's in the bill of rights,
That juries, not legislators,
Get to determine questions
of fact in the court room,
And one of the most important
issues of fact decided in
a civil jury trial
Is what the appropriate
damages are to compensate
someone who has been injured
Due to the fault of another,
you would agree with that?
I don't
disagree with that.
So, so why does the
u.S. Chamber spend
so much money
Trying to convince us
that we know more
About the value of
someone's injury or death
Than the people who
elected us to congress,
Who go into jury boxes
all over this country,
Under the seventh amendment
to the bill of rights?
The judge ruled that
the cap here in nebraska
was unconstitutional,
That, um, it violated your
rights to a jury trial.
And then the doctors
and the insurance company
appealed the case
To the nebraska supreme court,
And the nebraska supreme
court came back and found
the cap constitutional.
I've been involved in
the tort reform issues in
nebraska for a long time,
But most recently as a
member of the professional
liability committee
Of the nebraska medical
association,
And subsequent to that,
the colorado physicians
insurance company,
Which is the major malpractice
carrier for this region.
In nebraska, we have a total
cap that includes all damages,
Whether it be economic
or non-economic damages.
So caps on damages can be
three kinds. There can be
caps on punitive damages
In some states,
There's caps on non-economic
damages in many states,
And in a very, very few
states there could be caps
on the entire amount
That a plaintiff can get.
Economic damages, you can
think about those as your
out-of-pocket cost.
They're your health care
expenses, your lost wages,
And non-economic damages
are for pain, suffering, the
loss of enjoyment of life,
The harm that's been done
to them that is difficult
to measure in money.
But there needs to
be some reason,
When it comes to
non-economic damages
in the system.
And that's why I've proposed
a hard cap of $250,000 on
non-economic damages.
I think a cap
on non-economic damages of
$250,000 makes some sense
For most of the states in the
United States, 'cause there's
such a soft and squishy type
Of, of, of, damages, and
difficult to determine, I
think that makes some sense.
It's an arbitrary number
that bears no relationship
To the harm that the
plaintiff suffered,
And also, it has a
disproportionate impact on
people in certain situations.
If you've been
blinded, permanently disabled,
disfigured in some way,
Or you're a woman and your
reproductive system has
been harmed in some way,
Those injuries are
non-economic in nature,
And someone deserves to
be compensated for that.
Okay, guys.
Colin? Colin.
Boo!
They're identical twins,
but there's nothing really
very identical about 'em.
I mean conner's a, pretty
much a normal boy,
I mean he grew up and
played baseball and soccer,
And, you know, just did
what boys normally do,
And colin on the other
hand, he grew up,
The first surgery, I think,
was when he was, was he one?
One.
One. He had, he
had to have eye surgery.
There was optical nerve
damage in the brain injury.
It was part of the
brain injury. So he, he
doesn't see real well.
And then he started
having to go to therapy,
When he was about two,
I think we started
taking him to therapy?
Mmm-hmm.
And that was
pretty intense,
And they finally got
him to where he could
hold his head up,
And then where
he could sit up.
Then as he, he grew
older, he's obviously
mentally delayed.
He's...
He, he didn't even know
the days of the week.
The jury heard the evidence,
and they said okay, well,
We're, 5.6 million, I think,
is probably what they, what
he needs, and that was close,
We could've made that work.
I mean, that would have been
enough money that he'd have
people to take care of him,
If we're gone, or whatever.
He would have been okay
for the rest of his life.
And then the cap comes
in and says, "no, no, no,
no, that's not right."
You get this amount of
money and then, you know,
Pay your lawyers out
of that, and pay your,
some medical bills,
And so colin ends up
with a few hundred
thousand dollars.
And so what happens is then,
he goes onto medicaid,
And the taxpayers have to pay,
pick up the bill for his care.
Dad. Dad!
What?
It's falling apart.
It is. Is it getting
your hand all dirty?
No.
Oh, it is broke, look at that.
It's not just an
economic need, there are
moral issues involved here.
And what a cap does is,
it relieves the wrongdoer,
often a company,
Or a health care provider,
Of the responsibility
they have for the damage
that they caused.
Medical groups like the
nebraska medical association
Applauded the nebraska supreme
court's decision Friday.
They say it will keep
malpractice insurance
costs down for doctors,
And that, in turn, will
keep down medical costs.
When states enact
caps on damages,
Doctors' insurance premiums
typically do not go down.
And it's
interesting that when these
various limitations
Are enacted in various states,
There's never a requirement
that the insurance companies
pass any savings along
To the policy holder.
The insurance companies
are charging still,
I think, a lot of money
To doctors in nebraska, and
they're not having to pay out
very much money in nebraska.
So what are they,
they're making, it's
their little pot of gold.
The insurance industry says,
"well don't look at us,
it's not our fault that
rates are going up.
"it's all those juries and
judges and lawyers and, and
victims that are suing us.
"it's all their fault."
Those excessive jury
awards cost us all money,
And it's part of why, rising,
why there's rising costs, uh,
In the health care,
health care system.
If it was true that medical
malpractice litigation
Actually drove up
health care cost,
Then we would expect
that since 2003, when
basically nobody,
No patient was allowed to
hold a doctor or hospital
accountable anymore, in texas,
We would expect that health
care costs, heath care
spending would go down.
Well, in fact, the
opposite is true.
Health care spending has
been going up in texas,
At a rate higher than
the national average
Since we restricted
patients' rights to
access the courthouse.
So, the myth just doesn't
jive with reality.
Over these years there's
a whole lot of things that
I want to say about caps,
And, and to say just
how they've affected us
Doesn't really, um,
I don't know, it doesn't
really hit the nail on
the head so much.
I mean, it affected us
obviously, I mean we have a,
We have a, a son who will
never be able to grow up
and earn his own living,
Never go off to college,
never have his own family.
I mean, he'll require care
for the rest of his life.
And so, how does
the cap affect you?
It, it makes his
future unknown.
I mean, you have this person
that you're responsible for,
and that you love,
That you don't know, if
you're gone, what's going
to happen to him.
I mean, if it's your
child, take your child,
and say you're gone,
And give him to the state,
and let the state do whatever
they want with him.
And, is that what you
want for your child?
That's not what I
want for my child,
Especially when your child
can't ever grow up and take
care of themselves.
They're relying on people
to take care of them.
So, that's how the
cap affects you.
I know that.
Do you want
to come to the table?
No.
In many
respects, these laws violate
State constitutional
provisions that protect
people's rights.
And, in order to protect
those new laws against
challenge in the courts,
The business community decided
that it was important to them
To stack the deck
in their favor,
Um, with the supreme
courts of various states.
They wanted their
own set of judges who
would be deciding
Whether these
restrictions on people's
rights would be upheld.
Watch out, snick.
Watch out, snickers.
My grisham books.
Some of them, anyway.
When was this, this was
written, uh, two years ago,
John decided to
write the appeal.
He talked to me about it,
'cause he wanted me
to help him get the,
Get the details
right in the book.
He likes the books
to be accurate.
It's about, it's interesting,
because it's about uh, it sort
of tracks what I went through.
It's about a mississippi
supreme court justice
running for re-election,
And, uh, being, uh, attacked
by these out-of-state big
business interest groups
That are coming in, trying
to defeat the incumbent
supreme court justice,
So that they can get their
corporate interests on the,
um, you know, on the court.
So, yeah.
As the
legislature would try to
effect tort reform,
If it did get into law,
Then it came down to
the courts to decide
Whether or not that law
was constitutional.
And, there started to be
decisions around the country
That said that these laws
were not constitutional,
that they went too far.
So then,
the businesses decide,
Well we can't pass those laws,
What we can do is to
try and have judges who
decide these cases
Be really conservative,
business-oriented judges.
Karl rove developed
this plan, and worked with
the chamber of commerce
To influence the outcome
of key judicial races
around the country.
They put in place a pretty
aggressive campaign,
Ranking which states are most
important for them to be in,
And putting tens of millions
of dollars a year into these
elections that often had
Tiny amounts of money.
I started getting
calls from karl in the
middle-to-late 1980s,
As he began his
work representing,
at the beginning,
State supreme court
candidates in texas.
Rove was able to put together
a franchise, basically,
To elect republicans who
he was representing,
With a guarantee that
they would have
well-financed races,
And business interests got
supreme court judges who were
going to rule their way
On business cases,
and on tort cases.
By the time you reach
the 1990s, this core of
conservative, republican,
Tort-minded judges
Were ruling overwhelmingly
for some of the largest
corporate interests in texas.
It's a model that they
used, and they exported
to other states.
It's a good payoff.
It's a good payoff. You put
money in a judicial race, uh,
You spend $100,000 to help
uh, uh, challenge a, a
judicial candidate,
It can have literally
a million dollar impact
on your company.
And it seems that that's
happening more and more
throughout the country.
That, uh, our state supreme
courts are reversing civil
juries in this country
At an unprecedented level,
After seeing the gifts
of millions of dollars.
Last week, the supreme court
reversed a century of law
That I believe will open
the floodgates for
special interests,
Including foreign
corporations,
To spend without
limit in our elections.
If you get five
people, in our state we have
nine, so the majority is five,
You get five judges that
have that persuasion to be
always with the doctors,
Or be always with
the corporations,
You have court reform.
And that is more deadly
than tort reform ever
thought about being.
That's what this karl rove
chamber is about,
And they came into
these southern states,
And mississippi was a good
state to take on, because
it's a small state,
Not much money,
And u.S. Chamber put in
candidates that were
friendly towards them,
And they were able to elect
all of them except for one,
And that was
oliver diaz's election.
The appeal
was a book I published,
It's a novel, it's
completely fictional, and
it's completely true.
Uh, it's the story of the, uh,
purchasing of a supreme court
seat in mississippi.
I felt like I kind of lived
through it with oliver,
You know, knowing, because
he was my friend, knowing
what he had gone through.
I was born and raised
in biloxi, mississippi.
Lived there all of
my life, and then
went to law school,
And after law school,
came back home and started
practicing law there,
And in 1987 was elected
to the mississippi house
of representatives
And, and started a career
in politics at that point.
I was his campaign
manager.
You had these interest
groups that were interested
in electing judges
That they deemed to
be pro-business.
I was not deemed
to be pro-business,
And the u.S. Chamber
mounted a very, very large
and expensive campaign
Against me in 2000.
Diaz
even voted to overturn
a *** conviction
Because evidence of a prior
*** sale was allowed.
Oliver diaz. Very
bad judgment.
The negative ads are still
running, and that, that part
has not changed,
The, the ads are still
on the television.
It's, it's a terrible
situation.
It is demeaning to the office.
It is improper, it should not
have happened. I've, I've told
judge diaz that I've, uh,
Done all I can do to
get those stopped.
I don't like it.
My opponent, who
was supported by the
u.S. Chamber of commerce,
He had probably
a million dollars
spent on his behalf,
Which was not even...
Oh,
it was more.
Yeah, it was more than
a million dollars,
Spent on his behalf, but
it wasn't in his name,
And he didn't report that on
his campaign finance reports.
You know,
people think, "oh, the
u.S. Chamber of commerce,"
They think of it
representing small chambers
on a national scale.
That really isn't what the
u.S. Chamber of commerce is.
So what's the u.S.
Chamber of commerce?
um, I'm
not really sure.
Something dealing with
the government.
It was my understanding that
it was a government agency,
but I'm not sure of that.
Probably they are
getting engaged in,
hmm, managing of...
something.
Trade? Do they engage in
managing trade throughout
the United States?
I'd go with that.
The u.S. Chamber of
commerce became a very,
very important player
In the tort reform movement,
And they have now been
shown to be funneling money
into judicial campaigns.
Here's, here's the way that
campaigns happen, okay?
You have your doctors,
hospitals, manufactures,
insurance companies,
You got all those folks
kind of quarterbacked by
the chamber of commerce.
That's where the money is.
There's nobody on the other
side except for trial lawyers,
Because the trial lawyers
know the law, and they know
what's going to happen
If these judges are elected.
We were playing by a certain
set of rules, there were
campaign finance laws
That you had to know where
the money was coming from,
And there were limits on
some of the amounts of
money by who gave it.
The trial lawyers are
limited as to how much
money they can put in.
If you give more than
$5000, a judge can't
sit on your case.
Whereas if the money
comes from the chamber,
All that money was packaged
into a large group,
And there's no way
that you can see who it
were that contributes.
The chamber puts
in millions of dollars
into state races,
Through some kind
of a front group.
You know, citizens
for a strong ohio, or
partnership for ohio,
Groups that sound like they're
citizens groups, but in fact
are really business groups,
Hiding behind a false veneer.
We're doing much, much
better in courts,
And in the election of,
of judges to the state
supreme courts,
And we're in those races.
We'll spend $19 million
In election of those judges
and state attorneys general
in this next election.
They spent so much money
against us, they would run
almost every 15 to 20 minutes
On tv, on our local station.
So we got to where we just
didn't have the tvs on, and
all of a sudden one morning...
We didn't want
the kids to see
These horrible ads.
We didn't want
them to see 'em,
'cause some of the ads
actually had big money bags
being thrown up on a bench,
That he was bought
and paid for.
Diaz's
campaign took over $100,000
From personal
injury lawyers...
And so one morning we hear,
you know, just "whoo-hoo!"
And our daughter is just,
like, cheering downstairs,
and we come down, and um,
she's like,
"we're rich, we're rich!"
And she'd seen the ad
with the big bags of money,
you know, on the bench,
And her daddy's name.
The game plan was to
pick out a justice,
Try to make that justice
look soft on crime,
Take snippets from decisions
that the justice had made,
Manipulate those decisions
to make them seem absolutely
outrageous and ridiculous,
And, uh, spend a lot of
money to get that message
out to the voters.
The amount of money that's
spent on television in a
political campaign
Has an enormous effect
on the outcome.
And in fact, in 2000,
The statistics showed
that the side that
spent the most money
Won about 90% of the time.
We had two weeks until,
um, we had to run
again for a run-off,
And we find out that
the u.S. Chamber
Had literally almost purchased
all of the available airtime,
That there was available
from jackson to
biloxi, mississippi.
And what we had to do at the
time was actually take out
loans to finance the campaign,
And, um, if you're familiar
with banking at all, um,
They generally don't like
to loan money to folks
who may lose an election,
So you have to have
somebody with money that
co-signs on your behalf,
And my very good friend
paul minor was willing to step
up and sign a loan at the bank
To allow us to compete with
the u.S. Chamber's ads that
were running at the time.
Keith starrett's special
interest group from
washington, dc
Recently started attacking
me, and distorting my record,
I refuse to be negative, but
I must defend my record.
I still don't know how we did
it to this very day, but we
actually won that election.
I really honestly thought
when we won and celebrated
that election
We had thought that
was a good day.
It turned out to be, probably
one of the
worst days of our life,
the election was.
Federal prosecutors
decided to investigate me
And used, uh, the loans
that paul minor had
co-signed at the bank,
And called that a bribe,
and said that he'd
bribed me as a judge.
But what's really
interesting about that is,
I never voted for a single
case in which paul minor,
or his law firm,
Or anybody he was
associated with,
Had brought before the
supreme court because
of our friendship.
And then that
summer oliver was indicted,
And it just kind of
started spiraling
downhill from there.
Um, I almost kind of
didn't believe oliver.
I said there has to be
something here, you're
not telling me the truth.
They wouldn't bring
these charges against
us and do this.
All these counts,
You're facing a hundred
and some years in the
federal penitentiary,
We have two...
millions of dollars in fines.
Millions of
dollars in fines,
We have two small children...
Oliver diaz says
the charges against him
are groundless,
Because he withdrew from
all cases involving
paul minor.
Diaz is on leave from
the supreme court until
the case is resolved.
The decision
to prosecute justice diaz
May have been motivated
by tort reform politics.
It may have been motivated
by an effort to
Remove justice diaz
from the supreme court
Where he often voted
for ordinary citizens
and against corporations,
But it certainly was not
a prosecution that was
based on the evidence,
Because the evidence
did not support it.
Do you think
that oliver was prosecuted
for political reasons?
sure. I don't think
there's any doubt about that.
We thought
we were just targeted,
And this was just us,
And this political
prosecution was just us.
We later found out
that this happened
all over the country,
And those other judges were,
that won or were successful,
were also targeted.
After a three month
trial, I was completely
acquitted of all charges.
The jury returned
not guilty verdicts
on everything,
But, uh, three days
after my trial,
I was re-indicted on
tax evasion charges.
So I had to go through
another federal trial
After that first
three-month trial,
And had a week-long trial
this time on tax charges,
And after a 15-minute
deliberation time by the jury,
I was fully acquitted
a second time.
I was finally cleared to
return to the bench,
But not till after I had
been removed from the bench
for almost three years.
So what they
weren't able to do
through an election,
They were able to do
with a federal prosecution,
a federal investigation,
Uh, to keep me
off the bench,
Uh, to ruin my reputation,
To make it that, uh,
I probably wouldn't
be able to
Be elected again to the
mississippi supreme court.
Some other people were elected
who were considered to be
much more business-friendly,
Uh, justices then had
served on the court in
the years past,
And it really, really
did alter things.
In mississippi after the,
the courts swung,
I think they went, like,
two years without upholding
a plaintiff verdict.
You know, you might be able
to win with the jury,
But you have no hope
of having that, that verdict
sustained by the courts.
I think the, sort of, the
taint of these charges,
And sort of the residue
of all of that,
And the fact that some
people in the public
simply assumed
He was guilty because
he was charged of it,
Caused him to be
defeated for re-election.
Also, um, I was not able to,
to raise the funds to,
to compete.
I raised about a quarter of
the amount that I'd raised
in my first election.
If two or three million
dollars is being spent,
Or ten million dollars
is being spent,
The way it's going now,
ten years from now
They'll be spending a
hundred million dollars
on judicial elections.
And it's not really a good
way to have the system work.
And there's many people in
the business community who
don't agree with me on that.
Can you tell us
why you're here today
at this reform summit?
We're here to receive
the leadership
achievement award.
Oh, for what?
For passing a 208-page
civil justice reform law
in oklahoma,
That is going to take
the bull's-eye off the back
of business in our state.
What does that
mean exactly?
It means that we're
protecting our businesses
from frivolous lawsuits.
And do you think
there are a lot of
frivolous lawsuits?
There are, and we think that
there's a definite cost to
the medical profession
And the cost of doing business
Where we have to protect that,
Companies that are now
doing business
in our country
From that kind
of invasiveness.
And so who brings these
frivolous lawsuits?
All kinds of people.
People that are
jackpot-justice oriented.
Do you think
tort reform is a good thing
for the american public?
Without a doubt.
Why, why is that?
There's an incredible amount
of frivolous lawsuits.
It directly impacts
everything from
health care to, um,
You know, prices in stores,
and small businesses.
It's extremely important.
And where do you work,
or what do you do?
Uh, I am a, I'm a lawyer.
Okay, and with a
law firm or...
No, in-house counsel.
Oh, for what kind
of company you work?
Uh, pfizer pharmaceuticals.
I think we've just
gone too far.
Too much litigation.
And so who,
who benefits from
having less litigation?
Everybody, except
the trial lawyers.
And how do you...
Do you want to, like,
Eliminate people's rights
to go to the court system?
I want to give people...
My own preference would
be to give people
rights to sign contracts
When they buy products
and so forth,
So the contracts
would determine
what rights they had.
Are these things like
the arbitration clauses
that are in contracts,
Like the mandatory
arbitration clauses?
Yeah, those are useful
clauses, I believe.
Sometimes, um, litigation
is harmful to all of us.
And there are better means
to resolve disputes
than through the courts.
You mentioned
a few of them already.
Arbitration is a very
good one, and there
are lots of others.
Uh, but I hope
you'll excuse me,
I do have to run now.
No problem, thank you
so much, I appreciate it.
Did she get
any on her head?
Yes.
That doesn't go on
your head, baby girl!
Silly.
You thirsty?
You want a drink, hon?
Oh, yeah, why not.
Chocolate milk, coke,
orange juice, milk?
Hmm, I'll have coke.
A coke for breakfast, huh?
Uh-huh.
All right.
Here you go, I'm gonna
make me an orange juice.
I had
never heard of a mandatory
arbitration clause
Before I had signed
my employment contract
with halliburton.
I worked for halliburton
in houston,
And, um, I wanted to help
operation iraqi freedom.
My mom was very sick
at home, so I needed
to help support her.
They say it's more likely
that you'd get in a car wreck
Than something
happening to you in iraq.
So as a 19-year-old girl,
you believe your elders,
And you think that
that's probably true, so...
Four years ago
at the age of 19,
Ms. Jamie leigh jones
signed a contract to
Become an employee of kbr,
then a halliburton subsidiary.
That contract
contained a clause
Which required her to
arbitrate any future dispute
against her employer.
This means it would force
her to give up her right
to seek redress
In court if she was wronged.
Mandatory arbitration
is, uh,
Something that has to be
involved in the case,
isn't it, or something?
Because arbitration is
how the case... Oh...
It has something to do
with case files.
Have you heard?
No.
I've heard the two
words used separately.
Right.
Businesses use a number of
devices to keep the public
out of the courts.
One of the devices
they've used is
They've written clauses
into contracts that say
that you cannot go to court.
You can only
go to arbitration.
What we started to see
was, again and again,
Our clients had been
forced to sign in the
fine print of contracts
These mandatory arbitration,
or forced arbitration clauses,
And none of our clients
knew that those
provisions were there
And then it was only after
we got hold of their documents
That we would say to them,
"hey, did you know
you supposedly agreed
"that you are not allowed
to sue the company?
"do you know that
you agreed that instead
of going to a jury,
"that you have to go to
a private arbitrator,
"who's with the company,
that's picked by the company
who cheated you?"
And when you ask people
about binding arbitration
And "would you knowingly
sign away your rights?"
They say,
"well, of course not."
And then you ask them, "well,
do you have a cell phone?
Do you have a gym membership?
"do ya, you know,
do you have a credit card?"
Do you know whether
you've ever agreed to
Mandatory arbitration
in any of your contracts?
Um, I don't believe
I ever have. No.
Do you own, do you
have a credit card?
Well, maybe I have.
When you first sign a contract
with a cell phone company
Or a credit card company,
or what not,
There won't be any reference
or any mention of the
arbitration clause,
But then at some point,
the company decides to add it.
So what they do is,
they send out, in
incredibly tiny print,
A little booklet that
they stick in with the bill.
And what almost everybody
does, is you look at the bill,
And you throw
everything else away.
But that's where they send
in the arbitration clause
And then what they say
is, if you ever use
your phone again,
Or you ever use your
credit card again,
That you've supposedly
"agreed" to mandatory
arbitration.
What's happened in america,
Is that entire industries
have all adopted mandatory
arbitration clauses.
You'll see them in
credit card agreements,
Checking account agreements,
lending agreements,
Cell phone contracts,
Virtually anything that's
bought over the internet.
Computers, books, records.
Virtually all nursing homes.
Nearly every contract
to buy a new car,
Health clubs, tanning salons.
I have a friend who took
her cat in to be boarded
while she went on vacation
And the kennel made her sign
a mandatory arbitration clause
That if they killed her
cat or did something
horrible to it,
That she couldn't go to court.
You have no
bargaining power,
You as a consumer or
a worker are forced
into these things
And you really never had
a choice in the matter.
Mandatory arbitration is
fast becoming the rule,
Rather than the exception.
The practice of forcing
employees to use arbitration
has been on the rise.
There are several
surveys that show
That more than a third of
the working people in america
Are bound to forced
arbitration clauses.
In fact far more
american workers
Are governed by
mandatory forced
arbitration clauses
Than are members of unions
in modern america today.
I worked for halliburton
in houston for a little
bit over a year
Before I decided
to go to iraq.
When I was in iraq,
Halliburton and kbr
were the same company.
Those that go over
to iraq get promoted
when they come home.
Also, I mean my goal was
to just work there forever.
I was content there,
until everything happened.
I was told that
I would be housed in
a little trailer house
With one female on one side,
another on one side
And then a bathroom
shared in the middle.
And when I got there,
I was perplexed
Because I was put
in a predominately
all-male barrack.
I didn't see
any females there.
I emailed some of the managers
that I knew from houston,
And I told them I was
concerned, that I wanted...
You know, to be moved
into the living quarters
that I was promised,
And one guy emailed me
back and just said,
"oh, you'll get over it."
Men had their doors open,
and some were in boxers,
And they were cat calling.
When I woke up,
I was severely beaten,
My chest was disfigured,
I was bleeding between
my legs, I was naked.
I washed my hands and
then I saw the bruises
on my wrists,
And I'm starting to put
together that something
major happened to my body.
And then I go back up
the stairs, down the hall,
And I looked in my room
and there was a man
in the bottom bunk,
And I don't remember if
he was clothed or anything,
I was so, like, shocked,
that part...Bits and pieces
of it are gone from me.
It was just,
it was the worst moment
in my entire life.
To actually see a man brazen
enough to still be there
in the room after raping me.
And it was really hard,
And I know now
that the reason why
he was still in the room,
Was because he would be
able to get away with it.
I went to seek medical help
And at the army doctor,
she said that I had been, um,
Penetrated both
vaginally and anally.
And that the tears down
there were significant.
You've heard a lot about
halliburton lately.
Criticism is okay,
we can take it.
Criticism is not failure.
Our employees
are doing a great job.
We're feeding the soldiers,
we're rebuilding iraq.
Will things go wrong?
Sure they will,
it's a war zone.
But when they do, we'll
fix it. We always have.
So then two kbr security
officers took me to a...
It's been called a lot
of things, shipping
container, trailer,
Essentially
I was imprisoned.
There was two armed guards
outside of my door,
Um, I was begging and pleading
through the door to, you know,
let me get out of there.
And finally, one of
the guards, out of sympathy,
let me use his phone.
I called my father,
who contacted
congressman ted poe.
Well, it was
almost unbelievable.
Here she is, a young, uh,
19-year-old, uh, female,
And according to her dad,
uh, she had, uh...
She was locked up in one
of these shipping crates,
So the first thing that
I thought should happen is
get her out of that situation.
You know, uh, send the
troops over to rescue
her, so to speak.
And uh, the state department,
I thought did
a pretty good job.
After I was rescued
by federal agents,
They formed a meeting
with kbr management,
And management told me
that I had two options.
One, I could
continue working there,
Or two, I could go home
and be terminated.
I tried to pursue my criminal
case and it didn't work,
And then I tried to
file a civil suit
and that didn't work out
Because of the
arbitration clause in
my employment contract.
No one would conceive that
this would happen to them,
first of all,
And secondly, no one would
conceive that this would be,
Oh, well then, the company
that sent you over there
and put you in this position,
Uh, where you were ***,
Is also, "you're just
going to have to arbitrate
with us secretly."
I mean, I don't think anyone
could possibly conceive
that that would happen.
Well, whenever you take a case
out of the court system,
You're immediately put into
a biased type of forum.
Arbitration happens to
be extremely biased.
Most arbitrations
take place in secret.
You have a private judge,
So if you have a credit
card agreement,
The credit card company picks
who the arbitration company
is going to be
And then the arbitration
company picks an individual
arbitrator to hear your case.
The arbitrator wants
repeat business,
And they only deal
with you once,
But they deal with a bank
of america, or general motors,
or whoever it is,
The businesses,
they deal with them
day in and day out.
And so they're going to
tilt their decisions
toward the businesses.
There have
been a bunch of examples
Where if the arbitrator
ruled in favor of a consumer,
Or ruled in favor of
somebody who is an employee,
That they were blackballed,
and they never got to work
again as an arbitrator.
So they set up
systems that are
Essentially rigged
against the consumers.
Many studies show that
consumers come out
winning these cases
Maybe less than ten
percent of the time.
They're almost always
won by the bank or the
credit card company.
It's impossible to
find out what the reason is
For an arbitrator ruling
for one side or another.
They just say this side
wins, this side loses,
and that's it.
And there's no right to
appeal, so I have to take the
final judgment of one guy
Who's been picked by
my credit card company
To tell me that I'm going
to end up having to pay.
I'm not okay with that.
Yeah, I'm not okay
with that either.
No. Uh-uh.
That's actually upsetting.
Transparency is a must
in the judicial process,
So if there's no oversight
in that regard,
I'd be pretty,
I'd be pretty worried.
Until and unless congress
takes action with regard to
Restricting the use of these
binding arbitration clauses,
We're all going to be
stuck with these clauses.
Senator al franken
proposing the pentagon
shouldn't hire contractors
That make their employees
agree in advance not to sue
If they're ***
by co-workers.
I just started the jamie leigh
foundation, and I've been
trying to bring awareness
To the situation to help
others through my foundation.
So behind the
scenes up to this point,
You've been trying to
pursue every legal avenue...
Oh yeah.
I went public because
I wanted to bring awareness
to the situation
That there was a loophole
in our justice system
That needed to be
fixed very quickly.
If I could just, you
know, get this out there,
what happened to me,
That maybe, you know, people
would change the laws, somehow
the laws would change.
Hi!
Hi!
Hi. Thank you so much for
all that you've done.
Thank you for your courage.
It's just amazing.
Amazing!
Hi, yes. Very nice
to meet you.
Nice to meet you. You
have an incredibly
courageous daughter.
Thank you.
And also with a tremendous
amount of persistence.
yeah.
So, way to go.
Thank you.
And you're testifying
tomorrow?
Yes, sir. Uh-huh.
I've testified in front
of congress a few times.
Is it judiciary
committee tomorrow?
Uh, judiciary, yes.
So that's me.
Yeah.
I turned to the civil
court system for justice
When the criminal justice
system was slow to respond.
When my lawyers filed the
suit, um, they were met
with halliburton's response
That all of my claims were
to be decided in arbitration,
Because I had signed away
my right to a trial by jury
at such an early age.
I had no choice to sign
this contract because
I needed this job.
I had no idea that the clause
was part of the contract,
What the clause
actually meant,
Or that I would eventually end
up in this horrible situation.
The problem of forcing claims
like mine into a secret system
of binding arbitration
Goes well beyond me.
Even when victims pursue
their claims in arbitration,
The information is sealed
and kept confidential.
The system of arbitration
keeps this evidence from
ever coming to public light,
And allows companies
like halliburton
To continue to allow the
abuse of their employees
Without repercussion
or public scrutiny.
The seminal
question is, should employers
and employees be able to
Engage in mediation and
mandatory binding arbitration
of employment disputes
As alternatives
to litigation?
The seminal answer
is, absolutely.
Adr unemployment programs
are flourishing,
When implemented appropriately
they're decisively in
employees' best interest.
It is a popular concept
for those employers
who've adopted it,
And adopted it
appropriately.
It provides for more
effective communication...
Sir, in your
comments...
Sure.
Uh, would you also tell how
arbitration could be helpful
to somebody like miss jones
When the, when the, uh,
her employer, halliburton
in effect, said that
*** and *** assault
has just to be considered
part of the job?
What we
have in this situation,
I'm not here representing
Uh, anyone involved
in that case, I'm not
involved in that case,
Um, you know,
Miss jones has had
her day in court, and
maybe more than she'd want.
It goes on and on and
on, I understand that.
Uh, what we're talking about
is the concept of adr,
And dispute resolution
programs overall.
Senator franken.
Thank you mr. Chairman.
Thank you for calling,
uh, this hearing, uh,
Mr. De bernardo.
You said that the net result
of the use of, uh, arbitration
Is better workplaces.
Correct.
Better workplaces?
Correct.
She was housed with 400 men.
She told kbr twice that she
was being sexually harassed.
She was drugged,
By men that the kbr
employment people knew
did this kind of thing.
She was ***. Gang ***.
She had to have reconstructive
surgery, sir.
They had this,
this arbitration.
Now, if that created
a better workplace...
And then, she was locked
in a shipping container
with an armed guard.
Now, my question to you is,
if that's a better workplace,
What was, what was the
workplace like before?
That's a rhetorical
question, I'm not really
asking that question.
They had binding
arbitration at kbr,
And because of that,
And they asserted it,
On cases like this,
And miss jones, in your
foundation you've heard from
other women who were ***,
Is that not true?
Yes, sir, I have.
And uh, and women who,
under arbitration...
Yes, sir.
Were, were told to keep
silent, is that right?
Exactly.
And because of that silence,
you didn't know about anything
like this, did you?
Exactly, I didn't know.
It was not public knowledge.
And when
mr. De bernardo said that
you had your day in court,
What was your reaction?
I was livid, sir.
Four years to fight to get in
court is not a day in court.
Um, I was livid too.
This is the result
of your binding,
Mandatory arbitration.
Mr. De bernardo.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
As I talk to people
who have been harmed,
Look, most of them are not
interested in a big payday.
Most of these people are
interested in accountability,
And the, and the way our
system is structured,
The only way we have, we have
to hold somebody accountable
is through the courthouse.
I can't tell you why
people support tort reform.
I can tell you that if they
have supported tort reform,
And that they
subsequently get hurt,
They're really sorry
that they did.
There's a story
of a gentleman in waco.
He was harmed, and he sought
to hold the doctor who
harmed him accountable,
And he came to find out
that he couldn't do that,
And he had voted for the state
constitutional amendment that
Allowed the legislature to
limit the rights of patients.
And when he was told,
"well, you know, proposition
12 is what made this happen,
"made it so that you couldn't
access the courthouse,"
He said, "well, I
voted for that!"
And they said, "well, you
know, a lot of people did.
"and that's why it's the
law of the land now."
He said, "but that doesn't...
That's not my case,
"that's for those people
who file frivolous lawsuits.
"that's for those people
who are trying to take
advantage of the system.
"that's for those people
who are trying to cash in
on some lawsuit lottery.
"that's not what
I'm trying to do.
"I was harmed, and
all I'm trying to do
"is hold the person who
harmed me accountable."
And he realized
at that moment,
"what I've been told
all of these years,
"they think that's me."
We don't need tort reform,
uh, we need tort respect.
With the, the tort
law is, uh, what makes
this country strong.
It is tort law and the
bringing of tort lawsuits,
And the rendering of
civil damages, that's
what keeps our toys safe.
It's what keeps
our cars from horribly
injuring people.
It's what keeps people
from lying, cheating,
and stealing.
If we can't hold perpetrators
of wrongdoing accountable,
None of us are safe
from their actions.
That's the role that the
civil justice system plays.
The one entity that can
hold businesses, bad doctors
accountable is the civil jury,
And that's what they're
most afraid of.
Why is it that you support an
effort to limit the ability
of juries to make a decision
When you're suing business,
But you support the idea that
juries should be allowed to
decide in death penalty cases,
Where the issue is whether or
not some person should die?
Ultimately, it comes down to
whether you trust juries.
Certainly it's the best
system anybody's come up with,
in the history of the world,
To resolve disputes
involving ordinary people.
And then the question becomes,
what's the alternative?
So, should we let the
businesses decide? Should
we let arbitrators decide?
If we give up the civil
jury, uh, as a tool for
holding uh, wrongdoers,
And the business community,
uh, accountable, what's
the alternative?
Who's going to police them?
And the answer is
no one, they're going
to police themselves.
And that's exactly
what they want.
It really
opened my eyes to
how the system works,
And, um, the things that I
thought were in place to
protect you have been,
Have been taken away.
And I didn't realize
there were caps here,
And I didn't realize
that the doctor wouldn't
have to pay for this,
That the taxpayers
were going to pay for
colin's damages.
This is a
campaign that's occurring all
across the United States,
It's not only in mississippi.
They don't want a
level playing field,
And they'll spend millions
of dollars to get these
people in place,
To be sure that the judges
will rule the way that
they want them too.
I still have
flashbacks, I still get jumpy
if someone comes up behind me,
I have nightmares.
I wish that I could
confront the men that
did this to my body.
I think that it would be
instrumental to my healing.
The only way I could do
that is if I'm able to face
them in a court of law.
And I hope to do that one day.
I mean, I've heard so many
ridiculous stories about, she
was asking for $30 million or,
You know, something
equally ridiculous.
Basically, stella told them,
"I want you to cover what
medicare doesn't cover,
"and I want you to get a
better lid on that coffee,
"'cause I don't want this
to happen to another person."
And that was basically
what she was asking for.
When somebody goes to court,
they're doing something
extraordinary that is hidden.
To go to court and to sue
is not a simple procedure.
You have to go through a
lot of trouble to do it,
It affects your life,
you're going to be attacked
in all kinds of ways...
Going to court to gain
justice is heroic.
That idea has to be out there.
That is, when you, quote,
win a case, you win
it for other people,
As well as gaining
justice for yourself.