Homework No. 5 Give your paper a title 1,000 words minimum, write the word count

Homework No. 5 Give your paper a title 1,000 words minimum, write the word count on your paper Minimum 7 organized paragraphs • proofread and spellcheck For this assignment you are going to watch the film ‘Hot Coffee’ and complete the essay requirements outlined below: Hot Coffee link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psebm9RJDvU Incorporation Doctrine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4GN0cNp9Sw First, write an introductory paragraph that explains what your paper is going to be about. DO NOT WASTE SPACE TELLING ME WHO THE DIRECTOR IS OR WHAT YEAR THE FILM WAS RELEASED. DO COPY ANYTHING FROM THE INTERNET. Then write a second paragraph explaining what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is. You must also explain the following terms, which are essential to the four cases in the film: tort tort reform – in addition to the definition, include your responses to these questions: Is tort reform fair to victims? Is tort reform fair to those who caused harm to the victim? binding (or mandatory) arbitration. caps – you must also explain what it means to put “caps” on damages in a court case. Should caps on damages be unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why? You will then complete four separate paragraphs on the four separate cases that are presented in the four separate segments of the film. In each paragraph written on the separate film segments, you will meet all the requirements detailed below: Each case must have its own separate paragraph, then proceed with the following requirements for each case: First, give a detailed case summary – 200 words minimum (who, what, where, why, examples) that includes the name of the victim, the harm done to the victim, and who caused the harm. Second, in the end did the victim receive justice – yes or no? Justify this position. What was the outcome in each case? Give your opinion as to whether or not you believe the outcome in each case to be fair to the victim. Why or why not? Support your answer. Be specific. Provide detail (who, what, where, why, examples). Specifically in the McDonald’s case, what was the percentage assignment of blame? Include this. Specifically in the McDonald’s case, what was the original award – what was it later reduced down to? Specifically in the Gourley case, what was the original award –– what was it reduced down to? Was there victim blaming in the other three cases presented in the film? If so, describe the victim blaming in each case. Imagine that there was a jury trial for all of these cases, and you were one of the jurors. How would you have voted in each of these cases and why? Support your answer and be specific. Include your position in all four case summaries. Provide detail. For your final paragraph, write what the 7th Amendment says – that is, write the actual text of the 7th Amendment. This is a copy and paste. What protection does it provide to ordinary citizens? Explain what guarantee it currently provides. Should the 7th Amendment be incorporated to all the states? Why or why not? What does amendment incorporation mean? How would incorporation change the reach of the 7th Amendment? Right now, the 7th Amendment allows a jury for civil trials only in federal cases. If the 7th Amendment were incorporated to the states, citizens in all fifty states could sue and be guaranteed a jury in civil cases. In Stella Liebeck’s case against McDonald’s, she had a jury trial because the state of New Mexico continues to give citizens this right. Not all states allow this. Incorporation of the 7th Amendment would not automatically eliminate all arbitration, which parties could still agree to pursue. It would end FORCED arbitration – where employees and consumers are routinely required to settle their cases in a ‘rent-a-court’ that is most often controlled by the business or corporation or other entity that is being sued. The Seventh Amendment would challenge the long-standing practice of forced arbitration.