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

131–140 of 196 posts

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

#131

Post by nemo »

JetSetWilly wrote: post #129
nemo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Please be sure to use the term "3rd degree" any time you use the word "burn" in this context. It's the most important detail, omitting it looks suspicious.

I don't buy tea in the US since the water's never hot enough to brew a good cup. The nature of the preparation is such that there's often little difference between serving and brewing temps.

When I buy coffee I have no expectation that it's as hot as tea because not only is it prepared differently, but there is always a difference between brewing and serving temperature. The serving temp is only peripherally related to the brewing temp. Most chains tend to serve coffee around 160-170 F / 71-77 C.

If coffee's served at 180 F/82 C, something is seriously wrong with the place's setup. McDonalds was serving at 190 F/87 C. They cranked their Bunn equipment to the absolute top end of the serving temp. the hardware would allow. At the higher end every degree has a huge impact on the seriousness of burns.

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

#132

Post by gambiting »

sitkack wrote: post #26
crusso wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so let's say it's 165F and I spill a cup on someone. There's still going to be an injury. Scalding burns can occur at temperatures down to 125F or so. Whose fault is it? Does Starbucks have to lower the temperature of the coffee they're serving to maybe 115F in order to avoid responsibility? If I spill it in someone's eye, that may still cause an injury. Does Starbucks need to serve their hot coffee at 98.6F? I…

Why don't you go look at the pictures.

They would be just as bad if she spilled home made coffee using water from her own kettle. But then there would be no uproar then, would there? Or would she go and sue the maker of the kettle for making water so hot?

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

#133

Post by DanBC »

gambiting wrote: post #132
sitkack wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you go look at the pictures.

They would be just as bad if she spilled home made coffee using water from her own kettle. But then there would be no uproar then, would there? Or would she go and sue the maker of the kettle for making water so hot?

Your comparison is flawed.

She did not get a McDonalds kettle and pour just boiled water onto herself. She asked for a cup of coffee, paid, took the coffee out to the car and got in the passenger seat. They drove for a short while. They stopped the car. She removed the lid and spilled the coffee.

A more fair comparison would be if she had poured her boiled kettle into a mug, carried that through to another room, and spilled it on herself as she sat down.

It's likely that in the latter case the water which would have been cooled by the mug and a metal spoon would have been less hot. That would have given her a few more seconds to remove the scalding clothing, which would have helped to reduce the severity of her injuries.

Part of the problem is that McDonalds was serving coffee hotter than people would have it at home because McDonalds wanted it to stay hot for the duration of the journey.

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

#134

Post by marcosdumay »

nemo wrote: post #81
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…

Read the actual trial history. Your analogies don't reflect what actually happened, which is why you can't understand it. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days with multiple skin grafts. She asked asked McDonalds for medical expenses from the injury from the coffee and lost wages ( At that point she got an attorney. They tried to settle. McDonalds refused. In the trial it came out that McDonalds had more than 700 repor…

You mean, from the several million people they served coffee every month, 700 accidents happened?

What coffee is not a burn hazard?

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

#135

Post by lifeisstillgood »

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…

Don't get me wrong but isn't this the fault of the juries? Who by the way must also be the voters?

I mean if you are happily awarding damages to heart surgeons who only save half their patients when the rest of the planet does not better, then the problem is in the jury box? no?

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

#136

Post by thenmar »

stuki wrote: post #68
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…

Reputation systems, reviews and properly skeptical consumers, are what to aim for, in determining who is good and who is not. Whether for restaurants or doctors. Not frightfully pricey lawyers and other coercive, after-the-fact institutions. And, in the most egregious of cases, say McDonald's spiked granny's coffee with a hand grenade, the criminal courts get involved as a last ditch anyway. Reliance on civil courts…

Here are the two main problems with this comment:

-"lawyers are greedy" trope isn't really true, most lawyers would prefer to settle than go to trial (trial is more profitable for the lawyer) because it's a satisfying win for themselves and their client, most lawyers weigh ethical considerations heavily

-"reputation systems" can be gamed, are difficult to interpret, are vulnerable to selection bias, and exclude people who are too poor to own smartphones and computers

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

#138

Post by nemo »

marcosdumay wrote: post #134
nemo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the actual trial history. Your analogies don't reflect what actually happened, which is why you can't understand it. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days with multiple skin grafts. She asked asked McDonalds for medical expenses from the injury from the coffee and lost wages ( At that point she got an attorney. They tried to settle. McDonalds refused. In the trial it came out that McDonalds had more than 700 repor…

You mean, from the several million people they served coffee every month, 700 accidents happened? What coffee is not a burn hazard?

Something like that. Perhaps you might like to read all about it? I am sure you are aware that cases like this are primarily significant in their individual details, and not in vague generalizations.

"What coffee is not a burn hazard?"

All coffee is a burn hazard, though the higher the temp. the greater the hazard.

Please, if you'd like to reply, and want to refer to burns, do me the huge favor of referring to "third degree burns." It's one of those things that indicates the difference between discomfort and hospitalization, very germane here, especially in the distinction between specific facts and vague generalizations.

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

#139

Post by dfc »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #135
spikels wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Don't get me wrong but isn't this the fault of the juries? Who by the way must also be the voters? I mean if you are happily awarding damages to heart surgeons who only save half their patients when the rest of the planet does not better, then the problem is in the jury box? no?

  > Who by the way must also be the voters?
I am assuming this was a question and not a passive aggressive taunt. The answer is "No, it is not the case that being on a jury is proof that the juror has voted in an election." Many states use voter registration rolls as an input to the jury duty selection process but I can not find any that screen potential jurors based on actually participating in an election. Furthermore voter registration is not the only way that a citizen can end up being called for jury duty; states often use other DBs eg DMV, Hunting/Fishing licenses, etc for jury duty.

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

#140

Post by tzs »

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 Texas limit on non-economic damages is still $250k. It is not adjusted for inflation [1]. It's only the limit on total damages in a wrongful death suit that is indexed for inflation. Punitive damages are limited to $200k or twice the total of economic and non-economic damages up to a max of $750k. These also are not indexed. Here is what Texas defines as non-economic damages [2]:

"(12) "Noneconomic damages" means damages awarded for the purpose of compensating a claimant for physical pain and suffering, mental or emotional pain or anguish, loss of consortium, disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of companionship and society, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind other than exemplary damages."

[1] http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/texass-cap-for...

[2] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm

Post reply on HN