Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#41

Post by halostatue » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 4:51 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #32

bdhe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit. Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked. * The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines. * The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting * Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,00…

No argument that McDonald's should've settled for medical costs when they had the chance. Yes the coffee was too hot but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout. The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you…

Lieback wasn't driving.

Re: undefined

#42

Post by bellaire » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 4:52 PM UTC

bdhe wrote: post #24

iconfinder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have sued McDonald's for serving hot coffee in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...

Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit. Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked. * The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines. * The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting * Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,00…

You forgot the most salient point: At that temperature, the styrofoam was so soft (though not quite melted) that after removing the lid, it collapsed on itself. So she "spilled" the coffee by assuming that the cup would retain its shape without a lid. Since it was so hot, it did not, the cup collapsed, and she was burned.

Re: undefined

#43

Post by kwis » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 4:52 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #32

bdhe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit. Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked. * The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines. * The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting * Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,00…

No argument that McDonald's should've settled for medical costs when they had the chance. Yes the coffee was too hot but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout. The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you…

> but... she put the cup between her legs while driving.

No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked.

> The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because,

It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.

Re: undefined

#44

Post by tikna » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 4:56 PM UTC

This is all fake. Who drives the car with Laptop Lid Open? and why the hell is he looking at the laptop.

Ok let me summarize this. A person came in the car, driving to this persons house, stole the macBook, place it in the front and I guess is browsing Google Maps to find directions. Am I right buddy?