Hot Coffee

Nineteen years ago (1992), at a McDonalds drive through in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Stella Liebeck accidently spilled a cup of hot coffee on her lap, suffering scalding burns severe enough to require hospitalization and skin grafts. The refusal of the McDonalds Corporation to reimburse Stella Liebeck for the medical cost of her injuries led to a lawsuit that was not only played out in court but in the media as well. The case was, and still is touted by lawmakers and corporations as a reason for tort reform in this country.

While the movie explores many facets of this case such as the ability of the wealthy to sway legislation, help elect and or appointment legislators and members of the judiciary, the manipulation of public mindset through control of the press, it seems to focus on the corporate philosophy of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. But there is a sense of fairness that runs through our culture that rejects that philosophy, and to me that is what Hot Coffee seems to be about; our individual and collective sense of responsibility and fairness to each other vs. the seeming corporate philosophy of caveat emptor.

At the root of this debate is, of course, money. While money, for the individual, is not as important as things; food, clothing, shelter, iPods, and shiny substances no matter one’s socioeconomic status, money is the common denominator in American culture. Money will get us what we need, and want. For corporations it is all they need. It is the bottom line. It is business, and business cares only for money. It is all they want.

In the documentary “Hot Coffee” the need for money and the need for fairness intersect, or collide. The documentary well makes the claim that for the plaintiff, the issue was more about fairness than money, and that for McDonalds it was all about money. And that seems to be the microcosm in which the world is currently caught.

If anyone reads my three essays on our field experiences they will easily see a common philosophical thread that runs through all three. I did not plan that, but it seems that in all three field experiences our group contemplated our responsibility to each other whether as individuals, corporations, nations, or other otherwise. It is what the class has been debating all semester; where have we (humans) been and where are we going? From the origins of early Pragmatist philosophy to modern pragmatists such as Cornel West, Richard Rorty, Joyce Appleby one easily sees that modern Pragmatist philosophy is concerned with what benefits all. It is the same debate that currently is running not only through our politic but the world politic as well; who is worthy of decent treatment in the form of access to healthcare, clean water, decent living conditions, and who is not. What is our responsibility to each other? Deconstructing Hot Coffee reveals this question. It is a compelling question, perhaps the ultimate question, and it seems odd that the world is asking the same question at the same time.

Cody Davis