Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 196 posts

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#11

Post by DanBC »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

McDonalds had ignored requests from CDC about correct brew temperature of coffee. They were serving extra hot coffee despite being asked not to, and despite having had several previous accidents where people were injured.

She initially asked for her medical costs to be covered. McDonalds declined, so she went to court.

Full thickness burns are not a trivial injury. She was at risk of death. Treatment is painful and takes a long time. She would have been left with scarring and perhaps loss of function - because a fast food chain didn't care about customer safety.

Do you have access to a thermometer? Try measuring the temperature of a cup of coffee that you make at home tree minutes after you've made it.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#12

Post by Karunamon »

coolsunglasses wrote: post #9
crusso wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

I read an overview of the facts of the case a few years back, so I'm recalling from a possibly faulty memory. This coffee was being over-brewed at higher-than-normal temperatures because the McDonalds franchise was being greedy and attempting to extract more coffee out of the grounds. This exact same franchise had gotten past customer complaints about the dangerously hot coffee burning people. I and my father have sp…

Likewise with the memory thing, but I think they were brewing it at the National Coffee Association recommended temperature.

Anyways, I don't think the 'greedy' angle has any merit to it. One pack (mcdonalds coffee comes in these premeasured packets) is good for exactly one urn of coffee, and you (and the customer..) will instantly know if you reused it because the result is terrifically light and unpleasant to drink (but this implies McDonalds coffee is pleasant to drink in the first place...)

As far as customer complaints go, McDonalds themselves had hundreds of complaints about hot coffee and burns for many years before this case ever saw the light of day. Those hundreds are a statistical rounding error when you consider how many cups of coffee the restaurant does in a single day that don't result in any problems, let alone years.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#13

Post by stormbrew »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

That coffee you carefully sipped on probably wasn't as hot as the coffee she spilled on her lap. It's pretty unlikely it was hot enough that if you'd spilled it you would have required re-constructive surgery on your genitals.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#14

Post by rayiner »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

I think one fact that goes ignored is that McD's whole MO is selling coffee to people in cars, a higher risk situation. I think the reasonable temperature to serve coffee in that situation isn't the same as for when you're in a cafe.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#16

Post by Tuna-Fish »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

> Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall,

Starbucks coffee is not served anywhere near that hot. By their corporate guidance, the normal acceptable range of temperature for coffee served to customers is 145-165F. If you poured that in your lap, it would be very unlikely for you to receive third degree burns. The burn risk of water goes up very rapidly as temperature is increased above that. This is the entire point of the court case -- nearly everyone else in the country served coffee ~30-40F cooler than Mac, due to having found the risks too great, yet even after hundreds of complaints, MacDonalds decided to keep their temperature higher.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#17

Post by aaronem »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

Your opinion isn't unreasonable per se, but the jury which evaluated the merits of Liebeck's claims disagreed, and it's as simple as that; the opinion which matters, from a legal perspective, is that of the jury which considered and ruled on the case.

It's hard to blame them, too, given the facts of the matter; even the Priceonomics article considerably understates the severity of her injuries, as is common even in the most sympathetic recountings of the tale, because phrases like "external genitalia essentially destroyed" aren't pleasant either to write or to read -- or to imagine; of all the places on the human body where it's possible to sustain full-thickness third-degree burns, that's got to be the most awful. (Which says nothing of the expenses involved in surgical repair and follow-up care; given the extent of both which Liebeck's injuries required, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that her total medical expenses were pretty closely comparable to the total figure awarded her by the jury.)

Had I been on that jury, I feel certain I'd have argued for finding in Liebeck's favor from the start. Had you been on the same jury, perhaps you'd have argued otherwise -- or perhaps not; it's awfully easy to play Monday-morning quarterback on stuff like this, when everything looks so much simpler than it does from within the jury box.

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#18

Post by andrewtbham »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some serious burns... who else's fault would…

The downside of cases like this is, if they stand, we end up with cold coffee. We end up with no products or services that have any risks. We all get treated like morons because of liability reasons. And we will have to pay a premium for any product that can be misused.

Thankfully, coffee is still served at the same temperatures, and the only change was added a warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restauran...

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#19

Post by aaronem »

Karunamon wrote: post #12
coolsunglasses wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an overview of the facts of the case a few years back, so I'm recalling from a possibly faulty memory. This coffee was being over-brewed at higher-than-normal temperatures because the McDonalds franchise was being greedy and attempting to extract more coffee out of the grounds. This exact same franchise had gotten past customer complaints about the dangerously hot coffee burning people. I and my father have sp…

Likewise with the memory thing, but I think they were brewing it at the National Coffee Association recommended temperature. Anyways, I don't think the 'greedy' angle has any merit to it. One pack (mcdonalds coffee comes in these premeasured packets) is good for exactly one urn of coffee, and you (and the customer..) will instantly know if you reused it because the result is terrifically light and unpleasant to drink…

Well, you know, you can get away with poor trigger discipline for years on end without hurting anyone, and then one particularly careless day you negligently discharge your firearm into someone's head. In what way does the former make up for the latter?

Re: How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

#20

Post by PhantomGremlin »

I generally agree with the article, but it gets one thing wrong. It says:

   the evidence does not show an epidemic
   of frivolous lawsuits winning jackpots
My counterexample is patent trolls availing themselves of the hospitality of the "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas".
Post reply on HN