1. What did you think was the most interesting part of the film?
This documentary was emotionally striking to me. I suppose that was the point. I think the scenes that really resonated with me were the gang-rape case, and the cap for the family with one child okay and the other born with physical limitations. As I watched these people and heard their stories, I felt their struggle and their pain. I acknowledged the injustice that was done to them and I wanted to become a lawyer and find a solution! I also thought twice about signing a contract that I haven't read carefully. Additionally, I thought about how vital research can be before you take a big step like have a baby of accept a new job. Those were the differences with these cases and the McDonald's case. You don't normally research your breakfast, but I am definitely more aware and more concerned with the justice of the American people. The scene with Jamie(?) in court going up against her company almost had me in tears. I think her lawyer silenced everyone when he described her situation. What were they even arguing about? She had been GANG RAPED and this company was brushing that under the rug. I was shocked and disgusted at this behavior. It was the most interesting and thought provoking part of the film in my eyes.
2. Stella: Were you surprised when you learned about what happened to Stella Leibeck, the coffee burn victim? Do you think you would have responded like most of the people interviewed in the film? Based on what you learned about her case, do you think Stella should have won her case against McDonald’s? Why or why not?
Before I saw the picture of Stella's injuries, I thought this lawsuit was frivolous. I mean, Stella spilled the coffee on herself in her own car, so she had to have been the one at fault, right? However, after seeing the evidence, I was torn. Although Stella spilled the coffee on herself, these injuries just could not be ignored. Coffee that hot is a serious safety concern. Although the blame cannot be contributed fully to McDonald's, they are definitely not innocent. At the end of the documentary, after hearing the injustice of others with similar serious injuries that McDonald's ignored, I agreed that Stella rightfully won her case. Still, I find this sort of trial particularly tricky. Both parties are to blame. It is difficult to decide, especially in a court of law. If anything I think McDonald's should have paid for Stella's medical bills right off the bat. The fact that this was prolonged, was inexcusable. However, what draws the line? How serious do you injuries need to be in order to be reimbursed? Taking a step back, I suppose I really am not sure where I stand on this issue. I can see the reasoning behind both sides.
3. Frivolous Lawsuits: Do you think the McDonald’s coffee case is actually representative of what people refer to as “frivolous lawsuits”? What do you think should happen when someone files a claim that is truly frivolous?
I absolutely think that the McDonald's coffee case falls under the frivolous lawsuits category. I am not really sure what the current procedure is on frivolous cases, but I think they should probably be treated the same as any other case. Like the McDonald's coffee case, there are factors that might not be apparent on the surface that might give the case real subsistence. It might not appear to be as "serious" as other cases, but I think even if a case appears "frivolous" it deserves the same time and attention as any other case.
4. Bias: As the reading points out, the documentary is clearly intended to show a particular point of view about these issues. What information or interviews with other people do you wish you could see to understand these issues better?
After watching the documentary, I think I would really liked to have seen the other side of every argument. I thought it was interesting that most of the other sides refused to be in the video. However, they may have done so because this documentary was bias. I am not sure. Anyways, I think the case that most struck me was Jamie (?) the woman who was gang raped at her job, and nothing was done. I am aware that she signed a contract, but none the less, that was shocking to me. The scene in the court room where her lawyer put the other in his place really moved me. I can only imagine what that atmosphere would have been like if her rapists were there, or the upper-levels of the company who approved of that contract. With all the cases, I mostly want to receive personal justification. Why did they do the things that did? What is there reasoning?
No comments:
Post a Comment