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

121–130 of 196 posts

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

#121

Post by gordaco »

pekk wrote: post #110
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I would say that it's my right to have the guarantee that there is no hydrochloric acid in a hygiene product, especially one that can get near sensible parts of the body like your face and your eyes. Sane adults can blame someone when they buy a product whose properties do not match those of what the product is supposed to be.

It may be your right to buy hydrochloric acid and to pour it over your head, but actually, that's wildly different to what you said.

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

#122

Post by vidarh »

travisp wrote: post #33
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…

>Starbucks coffee is not served anywhere near that hot. True, it's usually not, although it's considered a "hack" to get better coffee to ask for hotter coffee from Starbucks (so that your drink stays warm in the cold and when you are taking your coffee with you): http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... The National Coffee Association recommends brewing between 195 and 205 and holding around 1…

> Either way, it's not quite so simple as "McDonalds was careless".

No, it's far worse than McDonalds being careless: They knew that their practice was dangerous, and regularly resulted in medical treatments, yet did not change their procedures.

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

#123

Post by colomon »

travisp wrote: post #33
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…

>Starbucks coffee is not served anywhere near that hot. True, it's usually not, although it's considered a "hack" to get better coffee to ask for hotter coffee from Starbucks (so that your drink stays warm in the cold and when you are taking your coffee with you): http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... The National Coffee Association recommends brewing between 195 and 205 and holding around 1…

Tea really is the perfect counterexample, isn't it? If you try to serve me water for tea at a "safe" 160F, I'm never going to buy tea from you again.

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

#124

Post by higherpurpose »

> The judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, for a total of $640,000. McDonalds appealed and later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount believed to be between $400,000 and $600,000.

Why would she settle for the SAME amount?! Makes no sense.

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

#125

Post by nemo »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #120
nemo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

She was found partly at fault. Based on the trial she wasn't found entirely at fault.

The injury actually was relevant and not an emotive distraction. McDonalds was selling coffee, not knives. Most would have the expectation that spilling a cup of coffee on yourself wouldn't leave you with 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body with 1st and 2nd degree burns on another 16%. She not only needed eight days of hospitalization for skin grafts, but also years of medical treatment.

McDonalds acknowledged that customers had gotten 3rd degree burns from using their product in the executed manner (multiple customers with 3rd degree burns), but that they were unwilling to make a minor change to the product that would prevent this.

It was the fact that they knew they had already injured people to the point of needing hospitalization that could have been avoided by making a minor change to keep people from getting injured that was at the root of why they were at fault. It was the fact that in court they stated that they were unwilling to make that change even after knowing about this injury that caused punitive damages, which the judge reduced.

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

#126

Post by jasonwocky »

spikels wrote: post #116
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 million…

The TMB taking this responsibility seems workable on face value; in a lot of ways, this correlates with how many European nations handle consumer protection: fewer lawsuits are permitted, but the bureaucracy increases its responsibility and authority. It seems like a pretty straightforward tradeoff with no obvious answer; just a tradeoff curve.

When it fails is when, as grandparent indicates, the bureaucracy (TMB in this case) wasn't given enough additional resources to handle the increased workload.

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

#127

Post by jasonwocky »

saryant wrote: post #98
ensignavenger wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats an interesting perspective- any studies that show that Texas doctors are significantly worse than doctors in other states?

Texas has some of the best doctors in the world and an innovative healthcare community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center > The Texas Medical Center is the largest medical center in the world with one of the highest densities of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science, and translational research. Located in Greater Houston, the center contains 54 medicine-related institutions, including 21…

>> any studies that show that Texas doctors are significantly worse than doctors in other states?

> Texas has some of the best doctors in the world and an innovative healthcare community

This doesn't answer the question.

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

#128

Post by icantthinkofone »

yew wrote: post #30
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…

I've found various sources claiming that Starbucks serves coffee at temperatures ranging from ~140 degrees F to ~190 degrees F. Most of these sources claim that their temperature is 'industry-standard'. I haven't been able to find an origin for any of these claims beyond the Specialty Coffee Association of America [0], who claim a standard 'cupping temperature' of 200+-2 degrees F. Can anyone provide a reliable sourc…

I don't feel like finding a link to a source for you. After 10 years of roasting my own beans from home, I can assure you that the temperature range for brewing is 195-205 as shown in at least one other post and in your link. To do so in a lower temperature impedes the flavor extraction process and provides a poorer cup of coffee no matter the quality of the bean.

To do so is a disservice to the customer. (I also own two restaurants.)

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

#129

Post by JetSetWilly »

nemo wrote: post #125
JetSetWilly wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

She was found partly at fault. Based on the trial she wasn't found entirely at fault. The injury actually was relevant and not an emotive distraction. McDonalds was selling coffee, not knives. Most would have the expectation that spilling a cup of coffee on yourself wouldn't leave you with 3rd degree burns on 6% of your body with 1st and 2nd degree burns on another 16%. She not only needed eight days of hospitalizati…

I don't consider it to be a "reasonable expectation" that if you spill a hot beverage you bought all over yourself, you won't be burnt. It is a completely unreasonable expectation.

I'm in the UK and I can buy tea all over the country. It is always sold at near boiling temperature - because that's how you make most tea, with boiling water. If you buy a beverage you can't just "expect" that it can't hurt you.

I expect this is why the outcome of the case is McDonalds adding a warning to their product that should be obvious to anybody - they didn't change the product because there isn't actually anyhing wrong with supplying a boiling beverage.

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

#130

Post by icantthinkofone »

> she relates all the checks that exist to prevent greedy people from suing for unreasonable amounts of money ...

Note the part of the sentence, "unreasonable amounts of money". That doesn't mean the lawsuits still don't happen, costing business owners thousands of dollars just to get them thrown out. Sometimes it's cheaper to throw the complainant a few thousand dollars, which they'll claim as a win, just to go away cause it's cheaper than going to court.

I was going to show two examples from my own restaurants but decided against it. You would not believe these were even considered by any attorney much less the judge who was willing to listen to them.

Post reply on HN