Of Mice And Men Film Analysis

The legal issues presented in this film are as follows: the effects of the media on citizens to ridicule lawsuits such as Stella Liebeck’s, the effects of limiting the amount of money that can be awarded by a jury in damages to the plaintiff otherwise known as caps on damages, such as the case of Colin Gourley, the corporations’ influence and power in judicial elections as well as the extent they will go to as experienced by Oliver Diaz, and the effects of mandatory arbitration in the work place, battled by Jamie Leigh Jones, as well as in consumers’ lives. All of these issues are presented to the viewer in order to prove an overall point of tort reform. Tort reform should be questioned and researched by citizens the film suggests, by encouraging a
sense of self responsibility to citizens to know more about the legal system, specifically torts, in order to ensure themselves a fair system of government dealing with the court system.
The legal procedural steps and language were clear in some areas of the documentary. Terms and phrases such as caps on damages, mandatory arbitration, torts, and tort reforms were all explained in the film for the viewers to better understand the issues at hand and why it is important to know these terms. The legal procedures such as criminal and ciil lawsuits were not explained as well since most of these issues were in the past, three fourths of these cases had already been decided on. For each legal issue the film provided a case or story in order for the viewer to better understand the situations at hand. The first case provided was the case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s, the case of the hot coffee. Mrs. Liebeck’s family thoroughly and genuinely explain the case, differing in facts and tone from the media and tort reform
activists would like the public to know. The Liebeck family chose to deal with the issue by participating in the documentary. Secondly, the case of Colin Gourley, a victim of malpractice, is presented to show the negative outcomes of caps on damages on cases such as his. The limitation on the amount the plaintiff could be awarded in Nebraska did not cover the amount Colin needed for his assistance required life. Unfortunately for the Gourley family there wasn’t much they could do to refute the law but they did however share their story to inform the viewers a negative effect of caps on damages and how they are not as handy as they seem. With each coming election voters are more and more fatigued with the amounts of campaigning candidates do as well as the amount of money each candidate spends on his or her election. In the case of Oliver Diaz, the influence of corporations on judicial elections had a negative effect on not only his political career but his reputation. Oliver Diaz went through the process of a criminal investigation and years after not being able to gain reelection into his supreme court seat went back to private practice. Jamie Leigh Jones, a rape victim, tried to purse civil and criminal trials against Halliburton Co. but because of the mandatory attribution clause found it impossible. Jones began a foundation for women in her position and did not give up for four years until she had her day in court. While watching the documentary I was bothered by the bias imbedded into the entire documentary, the bias to be against tort reforms. Although not an entirely a problematic misrepresentation of the law I believe the documentary could have benefitted from statistical information about the percentage of cases not considered frivolous lawsuits. If theses cases are not the one percent, then what are they? How large of a flaw are any of these issues? It is in my opinion that a documentary should have both sides of every story in order for the viewers to take on an opinion. Often with biased information we find so many facts would have definitely swayed our way of thinking one way or the other. My general impression of the film Hot Coffee was that of an eye opening documentary. Information such as the case of Stella Liebeck was clarified and put into a new perspective. The film did a great job in appealing to the pathos however that is not important when deciding an opinion on the information provided. The film sparked my interest in tort reforms and cap damages and allowing a level of curiosity needed to research these issues in the state of Arkansas.