Jennifer Houston

Doc. Film Analysis: Hot Coffee

The movie Hot Coffee argues for the rights of consumers against big business in regards
to the justice system. The arguments presented by the filmmakers are sound overall, but has
some obvious logical shortcomings within the film. The movie overall could be considered a
guilt by association fallacy, as it consistently demonizes the business community, condemning
them throughout the movie and claiming that they selfishly push various laws to protect
themselves from victims of wrongdoings looking for justice. This could also be viewed as a
motive or genetic fallacy, as they try to make us disregard their opponents arguments based on
the motives behind them or where they came from. This obvious bias, though, does not mean
that the filmmakers arguments are not good arguments. Other fallacies that can be found
throughout the film include hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, no cause for a cause, and
appeals to ignorance, to name a few.
Hasty generalizations are made fairly consistently throughout the film. The major
examples of these, though, would be the lack of more than one example to support a claim.
When speaking of caps on healthcare lawsuits, the only example given is Colin Gourley. Due to
preventable complications with the pregnancy, he was born with severe brain damage. A jury
decided that his family should be given 5.6 million dollars that should be used for living
expenses for Colin throughout his life, because he would need constant care. However, after the
caps, the sum actually given to the family was not enough to support Colin. A similar example is
the example of Jamie Leigh Jones, who unknowingly agreed to mandatory arbitration with her
employers, and was therefore unable to sue when she was raped in circumstances that her
employers put her in.
The problem with examples such are these are that they are extreme cases, and we cannot
know from just these examples the overall results of things like caps on damages and mandatory
arbitration. In the film, Ms. Jones opponent in debating the merits of mandatory arbitration even
said that he was not personally involved with anyone in Ms. Jones case, but that the mandatory
arbitration generally made for a better overall workplace. While this was certainly not the case
for Jones, as they pointed out, there is no way of knowing from one extreme example whether or
not this is actually the case.
As well as hasty generalizations, there are a few examples of slippery slope fallacies
within the film. Both of the following examples occur in the portion of the movie in which they
spoke about caps on damages. One of these was President Bush when talking about doctors and
malpractice lawsuits. He says that due to frivolous lawsuits and their subsequent consequences,
there are places in Texas where women dont have access to an OB/GYN. This is slippery slopes
because, while it is absolutely not good for there to be so few doctors, it does not eradicate the
need to have a legal system in which patients can seek justice against a doctor who mistreated
them, as well as the need for doctors who practice well. If these cases were truly all frivolous,
many of these doctors would still be practicing. The other example of a slippery slope would be
the father of Colin Gourley when speaking of caps on damages. He represents the opposition to
President Bushs policies. Mr. Gourley speaks of how caps on damages led to a lack of money to
take care of his son, which led to Colin being on Medicaid and being paid for by the taxpayers,
despite Bushs attempts to lower the cost of healthcare. However, caps on damages could lead to
other scenarios as well, and perhaps overall does contribute to lowering the costs of healthcare.
After this discussion of caps on damages being put in place for the purpose of lowering
healthcare costs, many of the opponents to the policy that are represented in the documentary
claim that it did the opposite, actually raising the costs of healthcare in the state of Texas where
it was implemented. This, however, is a no cause for a cause fallacy. There are many, many
things to consider when discussing the costs of healthcare in the United States, or even just in
one state. In this case, that state is Texas. Those challenging the caps on damages policy show
that since it was implemented, the healthcare costs in Texas have risen at a rate higher than the
national average. They do not, however, present any more evidence. They do not discuss any
other element that could contribute to rising healthcare costs in the state of Texas. Therefore,
with the evidence presented, there is no reason to assume that this is solely the effect of caps on
damages, or if the policy contributes to the rising costs at all. There is simply not enough data
given. Conversely, this is also where the appeal to ignorance comes in, as they would like us to
assume that it is the caps on damages that are driving up the cost of healthcare, simply because
there is no evidence to prove that it is not.
The issues presented in the film are done so in a way that uses the viewers emotions to
try to pull them to the filmmakers side of the matter. This is done by highlighting the suffering
and tragedy of the situations that the people being presented to us as examples are in. In many
ways, however, this is just the way that documentaries are meant to work. Unlike many others in
the documentary genre, however, this has a solid foundation in fact. Even if you are on the other
side of the issue, you can recognize the negative repercussion of the policies that are
implemented and the views that are taken. Along with the emotional viewpoints of families who
have been personally and negatively affected by the problems discussed, you are also given
valuable information and provided genuine and logical reasoning by experts who are
knowledgeable about the issue. Whether or not they are biased could be questioned as well, but
they do often provide good facts.
Another trouble with this documentary is the lack of a voice given to the other sides of
these quandaries. When someone from the opposite of an issue is interviewed or highlighted, it is
done in a context that attempts to bring the viewer to exhibit a kind of moral outrage and these
people and does not focus on any logical reasoning that these opponents may have to present to
us on their side of the issue.
Despite the logical fallacies that can be found throughout the documentary, as well as the
obvious bias, manipulations of the viewers emotions, and one sidedness of the film, most of the
logic presented by the filmmakers is sound. There is not enough data to make an informed
decision about the issues at hand, but it does give you a good idea of the filmmakers side of the
argument, as well as those of the highlighted examples. Even if you do not agree, the reasoning
with the presented issues and examples are fairly sound, and some effort is made to help to
inform the viewer of issues that they otherwise may not consider, or at least not in this light.
Documentaries in general tend to be biased and one sided. They do not tend to be
academic or informative in a way that will allow you to see every aspect of a situation. They are
meant to convince you to see things in the same way as the people who hold the opinions
presented to you in the film. Many of these documentaries have little logical basis in fact and
focus only on changing the viewers mind through emotion and outrage. Hot Coffee is
significantly better than many other documentaries in this way. It is generally logical and fact
based, and though it is biased, it presents you with substantial facts that can be made into a
rational and coherent argument against certain political policies and legal issues. As well as this,
the film is focused on valid political issues which can affect anyone living within the United
States. This focus on issues within the legal system and policies that have actually been put into
place lends the documentary a kind of practicality that many do not have. For a film that which
serves the purpose of persuading rather than educating, it informs the viewer on the issues fairly
well. However, this is only the case if the viewer recognizes the intentions of the film and takes
the time to inform themselves on the other aspects of the issue, rather just watching the film and
agreeing with it based on only a few specifically picked examples.
Citation:
Saladoff, S. (Director). (2011). Hot coffee : Docurama Films :.