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

111–120 of 196 posts

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

#111

Post by andrewtbham »

unreal37 wrote: post #92
andrewtbham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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._McDonal…

Actually, my understanding is that McDonald's actually reduced the serving temperature of it's coffee for a decade or more after this lawsuit.[1] [1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862/real-details-hot-coffee...

My understanding is that is incorrect. Mental floss is not a reliable source, it's more for novelty than hard news.

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

#112

Post by andrewtbham »

andrewguenther wrote: post #31
andrewtbham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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._McDonal…

No, we wouldn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I can assure you that business do quit selling products for liability reasons.

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

#113

Post by jemfinch »

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.

> There's nothing magical about the medical field, that makes approaches developed elsewhere somewhat irrelevant there.

There absolutely is something different about medicine: consumers' participation in the medical market is involuntary. We don't see doctors because we want to see doctors, we see doctors because if we don't, we will be maimed or killed by disease or dysfunction.

By the time people are seeking a doctor, they're often not in any position to evaluate the market--if a real market for medicine even exists where they live--and weigh the reputations or contractual demands of several doctors before choosing one. They're in pain, they're suffering, and they need a doctor now. That's very different than buying a watch on Amazon.

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

#114

Post by makomk »

mindslight wrote: post #63
malandrew wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, establishments shouldn't even serve liquids in inadequate containers. Either the customer should provide their own travel mug (such as a zojirushi or thermos nissan mug) or they should provide much safer disposable mugs. The crap cups that McDonalds offers are simply not up to the task. If necessary, they can do the same thing as SF does with the bag fee: -- coffee in your own mug costs like 69 to 99 cents. -- c…

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 .

The case isn't remarkable because she got third-degree burns all over her legs and genitals, it's remarkable because McDonalds didn't settle out of court like in the hundreds of other similar lawsuits against them around the same time period. (And this was after they'd received a number of warnings that their coffee was unsafe too.)

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

#115

Post by qwerta »

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…

I have friend in Czech republic. Local hospital (or butchery as she called it) screw up routine procedure, so she gave birth in 7th month and can not have more babies.

On damages she would get around $10.000, perhaps 5x more if she is celebrity with connections. That is not much money even in here, house costs usually around $100.000.

I think US will have to give up right to sue in medical care. If you count expenses customers will still get better care. The amount you save on lawyers could go towards better care. And if doctors screws up, you will have good medical system to fix most damages, rather then going to court with some theoretical chances.

And what could prevent bad doctors? Make gross neglect minor criminal offense. Doctor could go to jail for couple of weeks and loose its license. If enforced this would filter out bad doctors pretty quickly. And it could also force real safety practices such as recording procedures and operation check lists.

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

#116

Post by spikels »

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…

Nice theory but the reality is quite different. Medical care is far from a solved problem. For example if you are a teenager who gets an aortic aneurism (literal your heart is about to explode) in a car accident only 50% will survive even with the best care. How can cardiac surgeons afford to save half of these people if they know they will probably be sued by many of the other half with Texas juries awarding millions in damages for many of these statitically unavoidable deaths? They can't and neither can their insurers.

For decades Texas juries were awarding so much money so often it became impossible for many high risk specialties, such as delivering babies (think of the downside versus upside), to get insured. In 2000 around a quarter of doctors in Texas were being sued for medical malpractice. Most insurance companies stopped writing insurance for doctors in Texas and the few remaining cooperatives faced bankruptcy. This is why both the Texas legislature and Texas voters (Prop 12) decided to limit damage awards in 2003 to what is now around an inflation adjusted $2 million per victim. Similar things happened in other states with California leading the way in the mid-1970s with a even more restrictive law (no inflation indexing - still the same $250,000 cap as 40 years ago)[1].

Remember the Texas lawyers and juries who have pretty much ruined the US patent system. I that who should an best police doctors? The Texas Medical Board seems like a pretty good approach: people with actual medical training and experience reviewing complaints about doctors. Maybe there is something better for getting rid of incompetent doctors than the Texas Medical Board (ideas pleae?) but unrestricted litigation proved unsustainable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Ref...

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

#117

Post by phpnode »

everyone wrote: post #50
waterfowl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's hot and there's "almost boiling" and they'd been told several times to stop keeping the coffee that hot but somehow it saved time. Key words from the lawsuit "fused labia." It was not minor burning.

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…

If I sell you a harmless marshmallow heated to 10000°C and when you bite into it your face is engulfed in flames, who is being negligent?

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

#118

Post by Svip »

I am surprised to learn that arbitration clauses are legal in contracts with consumers. Arbitration is legal in Denmark, but only between businesses or - in few cases - private citizens who agree to them, but they can never be part of a contract with a consumer. Netflix tried that when they moved into Denmark, thus null and voiding the entire contract between Netflix and their consumers.

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

#119

Post by robryk »

michaelochurch wrote: post #41
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…

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. Detail often missed: she had a lid on the styrofoam cup, properly placed. It wasn't an open cup. The cup and lid were of low quality and, while they passed at lower temperatures, deformed at the serving temperature, enough that the lid popped off, causing the spill. In…

> Detail often missed: she had a lid on the styrofoam cup, properly placed. It wasn't an open cup. The cup and lid were of low quality and, while they passed at lower temperatures, deformed at the serving temperature, enough that the lid popped off, causing the spill.

According to the Wikipedia article[1] the lid didn't pop off accidentally: she tried to remove it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaura...

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

#120

Post by JetSetWilly »

nemo wrote: post #70
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?…

She tried to settle for $20k for medical expenses and lost wages but McDonalds offered $800. McDonalds had more than 700 reports of injuries from the coffee. Their internal quality control manager reported that they recognized that they were posing a burn hazard to customers with the heat of their coffee, but that it was a minor concern that they were unwilling to adjust. McDonalds admitted that not only were they bu…

None of that seems to change the fact that it was her own fault, I'm a bit confused how anybody could think it does.

There's thousands of people cutting themselves with kitchen knifes every year too. So what? It doesn't make the kitchen knife manufacturer somehow liable if you cut yourself if they "knowingly" sell you a kitchen knife despite being fully aware of the thousands of injuries caused by them every single year.

All the stuff about how she was injured (emotive irrelevance), how other customers are also injured - is just an irrelevant distraction to the central fact that it was entirely her own fault and her own responsibility.

Post reply on HN