How biased is the legal academy? Caroline Forell, who teaches torts at the University of Oregon Law School, has published a paper (h/t Torts Prof via Situationist) that discusses the McDonald's hot coffee case for several pages without once acknowledging the arguments against liability. At least when I give my Law of McDonald's talk, I give both sides of the story. Forell is in such a bubble that she thinks she can premise her argument on the idea that the Liebeck case is aspirational and tort reformers are wrong and "fictionaliz[ing]" by merely asserting it. And none of her editors would think to ask if she's being one-sided and two law blogs can link to it without even thinking about being a wee bit skeptical about what most people would correctly consider an outlandish argument.
Needless to say, Forell also defends the bogus obesity suits against McDonald's.