[steveeq1]

Also be sure to explore "the other side" after watching that movie: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/

I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything else.

[sdevoid]

So these videos are hosted on Youtube by the U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform, which describes itself as "a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone." The website says "The views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform." Yea, but who setup this slick panel and presumably paid these lawyers, moderator and editors?

Edit: Looking at their arguments in each episode: 1. Intros and general reactions and opinions. No direct argument here.

2. Definition of tort in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase civil harm. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc.

3. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold.

4. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare.

5. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad apples'

6. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims.

Overall I think it's surprising that all panelists are in agreement on each issue. :-)

[steveeq1]

ad hominem. Attack the arguments presented in the video, not the arguers.

edit: the message that I replied too got heavily edited after the fact.

[sdevoid]

It's not ad hominem to point out that these videos are being produced by an organization that has historically taken one side on the issue of tort reform.

I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts here:

3. The documentary does cover McDonalds scale and the fact that they received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices (not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.

4. This dances around the issue. Nebraska does have damage caps and those caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic". Not sure what more to say...

5. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is an appearance of influence thanks to donations.

6. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with mandatory arbitration which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling aspect of these agreements.

None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises. The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point' because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.

And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which usually indicates that the panel was poorly chosen, at least if you want an good presentation of different viewpoints.