Chris, I'd like to urge you to look into that "$3million for coffee spill" claim of yours. If you did, you'd find that: 1) For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. 2) McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. 2) The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. 3) The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. 4) The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. 5) A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. 6) fter careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) 7) On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. 8) A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years. -- So you can see, the way these tort reform media types report things is by telling half truths and straight-out lies. I think the facts here paint a picture far different than that of tort system abuse.

Its a shame that the Oklahoman editorial never lets the truth and facts get in the way of spinning a special interest story. When will the Oklahoman quit making things up about Oklahoma's tort system? I doubt ever. The Oklahoman needs to grow up and be better than this factual and errant editorials that frankly feed on misinforming the public at large.

Thanks, Concerned.

Once again, Ed Kelly is vastly ill informed on this subject and seems to do so at the behest of insurance companies. Shame on Ed for such factual fallacy in reporting and frankly just making this stuff up as he goes. By the way Ed, if you would bother reading the Ohio opinion you will find that Ohio's tort laws are nothing like the draconian "tort reform" bill passed last year which would have closed the court house doors to every Oklahoman, especially the young, elderly and poor. Just in case you didn't know, and for those reading this article, the Ohio opinion Ed lauds basically supports the tort system we currently have in place. The Ohio cap on punitive damages is very similar to our own (with levels). Also, contrary to Mr. Kelley's erroneous assumption, the Ohio statute limiting non-economic damages "does not apply to tort actions . . . against political subdivisions . . . nor does it apply to actions for wrongful death, medical or dental malpractice, or breach of contract." Simply put, it covers normal PI cases (auto, dogbites, slip&fall, products, etc.) and the cap (which also has levels) can be lifted entirely if the plaintiff suffered "permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, . . . organ", etc., i.e., no cap with a devastating injury.

So we're supposed to base our opinion about tort reform on how well a medical malpractice insurance company is doing? There has been so little tort reform in so few places that there is no way you can draw any type of conclusion at this point. Insurance companies are currently lining their pockets by charging ever higher premiums. Those premiums as passed along to us when we purchase goods and services. Nobody is saying that people should not be allowed to file wrongful injury suits. Rather, there should be reasonable guidelines that juries must follow in civil suits, just as they are required to follow certain guidelines in criminal trials. You don't give someone the death penalty for running a stop sign, and you don't award someone $3 million for spilling hot coffee on themselves.

Brittany/OKC, well said on all accounts!

I believe that the Oklahoman and business interests in the state truly believe that tort "reform" will benefit the people of Oklahoma by making us more attractive to businesses. However, I believe this is a flawed approach. We the people should not be asked to give up our right to recover for our injuries when we are mistreated by the negligent acts of corporations. This editorial characterizes the issue as one of trial lawyers trying to line their pockets, but the fact is, it is the people who are catastrophically injured by corporate greed and negligence that are giving something up. It is we the people that lose. Oklahoma has plenty of great reasons to be attractive to business, including a cost of loving that is well below the national average. The difference in cost of living and cost of land to build new developments compared to the national average makes a far bigger dent in the cost of doing business than tort "reform" will. In fact, one of the largest medical malpractice insurers in Texas, reported that tort reform only decreased their yearly costs by less than 1% and subsequently sought to raise their rates by about 19%. This does not sound like the kind of thing that will benefit the doctors or consumers in any way. Instead, insurance companies will save a little bit of money and continue to gouge the insured. Let's not give up our rights under the civil jury system just to line the pockets of insurance companies. Let's show that Oklahoma is attractive because we care about the lives of our citizens, we are a great state in which to raise a family, and we offer a chance to live a great life at a low cost.