How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by rictic » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:34 AM UTC

stuki wrote: post #94

karmajunkie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that theory is that many doctors require patients to sign documents that prohibit online reviews, and many "bad reviews" from patients are somewhat frivolous. So reputation management is largely worthless in the medical field. Additionally, in Texas for example, tort reform has done nothing to limit costs of healthcare (though it has made malpractice insurance much cheaper, which makes life nice for…

And what kind of reputation, do you think an Amazon seller who makes potential customers sign "no review" contracts, will get? There's nothing magical about the medical field, that makes approaches developed elsewhere somewhat irrelevant there. It's just another fee for service arrangement. Although many Doctors do like to fancy themselves as special snowflakes.

That's some elegant rhetoric and ideology but it doesn't address the reality of the situation.

The evidence that I see says that this has been a practice for at least five years, and according to the Boston Globe[2] one reason for this is that doctors feel like the conversation is one-sided, as they are legally forbidden from saying much about their patients.

1] http://boingboing.net/2009/03/05/doctors-force-patien.html 2] http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/03...

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

#102

Post by [deleted] » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:38 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #36

"Tort reform" can seriously screw over people, because the parties that tend to favor tort reform (by which they mean greatly limiting the ability of people to sue and/or the amount they can win if they do sue) also tend to favor limiting government regulation and oversight. That can leave nothing to compensate for the removal of the deterrence factor that the threat of lawsuits provides against bad corporate or prof…

[deleted]

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

#103

Post by mindslight » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:40 AM UTC

andrewguenther wrote: post #76

mindslight wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different people enjoy their coffee at different temperatures. Those who enjoy drinking steam should be able to make that choice without being "protected" from themselves. I'd love it if the serving temperature of the coffee became more of a prominent option - I personally have to let freshly brewed coffee sit for ~20 minutes to be drinkable, and I even go so far as to delay adding cream (if I am going to) so that it…

Did you miss the part where the coffee was hot enough to melt skin and incur third degree burns? If you want that, then yes, I would say you need to be protected from yourself.

As will any boiling water, yet that's what much coffee is made with. Some people add a lot of cream and still want it hot, some people like to hold a hot mug for a while before drinking, some people like to sip and mix with air. My father will complain that the coffee is not hot enough, yet it is way too hot for me. As I said, people are entitled to have personal preferences even if you can't identify with them at all. What exactly do you gain from pigeonholing them as weirdos and asserting that their wishes should not be respected?

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

#104

Post by yuhong » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:51 AM UTC

As a side note, the cost of the lawsuits (relative to the benefits) is one of the reasons why I don't think anti discrimination laws are a good idea. I am thinking of ditching them, but allowing the EEOC or similar to order particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if necessary.

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

#105

Post by mindslight » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:53 AM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #79

mindslight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd like to see less general waste, it's important to keep in mind that any large disposable hot coffee cup is a flimsy piece junk with the lid removed, millions are sold per day, those lids even sometimes pop off, and yet we're talking about a 22 year old case for its remarkability .

Is it remarkable because of how rare it is for admittedly insufficient disposable coffee cups to negligently discharge their contents all over their users, or because of how rare it is that such discharge results in life-threatening injuries and years of reconstructive treatment to try to repair destroyed genitals?

Yes, people take care with dangerous/messy things. Is any possible source of danger to be considered a problem to be eliminated? If that's what you're after, please go join an appropriate lifestyle community, as your desire is an abstracted fantasy incongruent with reality.

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

#106

Post by rdtsc » Sun, May 11, 2014, 6:21 AM UTC

everyone wrote: post #45

I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was, simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a hammer and then they crush their hand with it?…

> Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself

3rd degree life threatening burns? There is nothing obvious about that. This is not like a hammer but a gun without a safety one, given to people in a drive through. Most could put those in their pockets and between the seats, but some will at some point pull the trigger. One can argue about the idiocy of those that pulled the trigger and shot themselves, but it is just as well valid to argue about why is the safety off by default. Now think of safety as the temperature value.

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

#107

Post by rdtsc » Sun, May 11, 2014, 6:28 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #69

everyone wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was some mention of the cups not being fit for purpose and the temperature not being the standard which are valid points, but I do not think it is fitting to stress or mention the severity of the injuries (as many people here are doing) when debating the issue at hand. How severe the injuries are is immaterial to any negligence on the part of McDonalds. That is just logic. To illustrate: I could buy a "har…

The severity of the injuries is important because McDonalds had ignored many previous accidents and had ignored a CDC request to reduce the temperature. Reducing the temperature reduces the severity of the injuries. Using your marshmallow analogy: if you sold the marshmallows in individual plastic shells and children started eating the marshmallows by sucking them out of the shells, and children were sometimes chokin…

> The severity of the injuries is important because McDonalds had ignored many previous accidents and had ignored a CDC request to reduce the temperature.

That and also it was a very important element in the PR campaign that was waged. Hiding and obscuring the extend of damages was crucial to its success. It would be hard to paint it as "oops someone burned themselves with some coffee, how silly" it they had to mentioned those were life threatening burns.

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

#108

Post by pekk » Sun, May 11, 2014, 6:39 AM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #91

aaronem wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever had McDonalds coffee? It's not as though we're talking about the stuff you get after it's been through a civet cat's digestive system, where it's scarce and expensive and you really want to extract it at the recommended 200 degrees Fahrenheit to get every last molecule you can of the volatiles out of the beans, so that you aren't wasting your investment. McDonalds coffee, conversely, is just plain old s…

All the hyperbole is not really adding to the conversation.

The underlying point that this really isn't about gourmet extraction of flavor is relevant, however. If Starbucks can serve lower-temperature coffee, McDonald's can, its coffee is not even as good as Starbucks'.

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

#109

Post by pekk » Sun, May 11, 2014, 6:40 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #32

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 r…

Hm that must be why Starbucks drinks get cold so fast. Or maybe it's the paper cup. McD coffee in an insulated cup is still nicely hot by the time I get to work. When I make tea, or coffee with my Aeropress, I use boiling water right out of the kettle. I agree with GP, coffee should be HOT.

You can personally opt to drink boiling water directly from the kettle if you want to and there will be no lawsuits, but that's not a comparable situation.

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

#110

Post by pekk » Sun, May 11, 2014, 6:48 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #72

everyone wrote: post #45

I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was, simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a hammer and then they crush their hand with it?…

> Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. If I sell you shampoo with hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because "obviously getting soap in your eyes hurts?"

It is my right to buy shampoo with hydrochloric acid in it without the nanny state getting in the way. Sane adults don't blame someone else when they put hydrochloric acid in their own eyes.