OA31: More on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Lawsuit

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 3 January 2017

⏱️ 60 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Welcome to the first Opening Arguments of 2017, and the first episode on our new two-episode-per-week schedule. Just a reminder: we will be releasing these episodes on Tuesdays and Fridays every week. More on scheduling below. Today's episode begins with a far-fetched (but interesting!) hypothetical about what would happen if Donald Trump refused to take the Presidential Oath of Office. We dig into the Constitution, the 20th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment and go down some fun rabbit trails. For our main segment, we return to the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit we discussed in OA 29, and tackle some common questions about negligence raised by listeners. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between "legalizing" and "decriminalizing" ... stuff. Yeah, "stuff." Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep question #4 about trespass. Going forward, TTTBE will always be an answer on Tuesday followed by a new question on Friday. Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). Show Notes & Links

If you missed OA29, you might want to go back and listen to find out all that's right and wrong about the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit.
Also, we gave you a little holiday present by releasing LAM #1: The Firm to all of our listeners. If you haven't listened already, we think you'll enjoy it.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	It's a great change of his feelings.
0:04.8	Well, there could be a death penalty.
0:06.3	Nothing to lawyer.
0:19.8	Seriously, when the going gets tough, you don't want to criminal lawyer.
0:23.2	All right, you want a criminal lawyer.
0:31.0	Lady Trahan's air injector box.
0:33.4	Objection.
0:34.4	In the absence of pants, defense and suspenders serve no purpose.
0:38.2	I'm going to allow them.
0:40.0	For now, thank you.
0:45.0	I'm going to be a simple country, have a chicken.
0:48.0	But I know when we're a finger-lift, what do you say we plead insanity?
0:55.0	Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
0:59.8	This podcast is sponsored by the law offices of P. Andrew Torres, LLC for entertainment purposes,
1:04.8	is not intended as legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship.
1:08.8	Don't take legal advice from a podcast.
1:18.8	Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.
1:20.8	This is episode 31.
1:22.8	I am so excited, Andrew Torres, because this is the first week of our double episode,
1:28.8	two episodes a week from here on out.
1:31.8	How exciting is that?
1:33.8	Yeah, no, I'm really excited.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.