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

#171

Post by Crito » Sun, May 11, 2014, 8:42 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #159

mirkules wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I simply cannot fathom why people seem to believ that service providers can be held liable for their own stupid decisions. Putting hot coffee in your lap is a stupid decision. When I was a kid, I got a pretty decent electric shock from a neighbor's improperly mounted doorbell. The doorbell did not work, so I flipped it over (it was dangling on some wires) and tried to fix it on the spot (as if I knew what…

People take risks. No-one is going to eliminate all risk from their life. People modify their behaviour according to the risk involved. Putting hot coffee in your lap is a risk, but the level of risk depends on exactly how hot that coffee is. No-one wants coffee of any temperature soaking their lap, but coffee that causes 3rd-degree burns is a lot different from coffee that hurts a bit. I would personally try to avoi…

> but coffee that causes 3rd-degree burns is a lot different from coffee that hurts a bit.

Fresh black coffee from just about any shop will cause 3rd-degree burns if you spill it in your lap. Mcdonalds coffee was not somehow unique in that respect, despite opinion to the contrary.

In this thread, meaning to condemn Mcdonalds by holding the "reasonable Starbucks" up as an example, Starbucks coffee has been pegged at "145-165F".

145F coffee can cause 3rd degree burns in less than five seconds. 165F coffee can cause 3rd degree burns in less than one second.

Industry standard coffee causes third degree burns.

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

#172

Post by Crito » Sun, May 11, 2014, 8:47 PM UTC

avalaunch wrote: post #85

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…

I think it comes down to expectations. There's an expectation when you buy a drink that it will be served at a drinkable temperature. True, there's also an expectation when you buy coffee that it will be served at a temperature hot enough to cause injuries if you spill it on yourself. But the expectation is that those injuries will be first or perhaps second degree burns, certainly not third. Had that been the case,…

> But the expectation is that those injuries will be first or perhaps second degree burns, certainly not third.

That expectation is unreasonable. If you go to Starbucks today and get a black coffee, that coffee will be hot enough to give you third degree burns. If you buy black coffee from Mcdonalds today, it will likely be just as hot as the coffee was that burned that woman two decades ago.

The industry standard was and continues to be serving coffee that can cause 3rd degree burns. You would do well to expect that.

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

#173

Post by Crito » Sun, May 11, 2014, 8:58 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #131

JetSetWilly wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

> Most chains tend to serve coffee around 160-170 F / 71-77 C.

Coffee at 160F can quite easily cause third degree burns. It can cause third degree burns in less than one second.

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3

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

#174

Post by dfc » Sun, May 11, 2014, 9:11 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #168

dfc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Furthermor…

Not meant to be P-A taunt, though hell this is the Internet so reasonable supposition :-) No it was really "the public" I meant. Voters, jurors, us in other words. If Texas juries in one county are making patents a laughing stock, it really is upto the rest of us - either in that county, or in juries in other counties and countries, to change that. Or perhaps vote it out of existence. It just seems to me that we read…

Okay, I am in complete agreement with this sentiment. Where I disagree is with the notion that jurors and voters are equivalent and/or using the two terms as if they are interchangeable. I think it would be interesting to compare the demographics of juries vs voters.[^1] I have a sneaking suspicion that the two populations are dramatically different.

[^1]: I posted a question at the SX for politics but I have never had much luck there. http://politics.stackexchange.com/q/3218/1926

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

#175

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, May 11, 2014, 9:14 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #166

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People take risks. No-one is going to eliminate all risk from their life. People modify their behaviour according to the risk involved. Putting hot coffee in your lap is a risk, but the level of risk depends on exactly how hot that coffee is. No-one wants coffee of any temperature soaking their lap, but coffee that causes 3rd-degree burns is a lot different from coffee that hurts a bit. I would personally try to avoi…

Most people don't think and behave that logically. If this coffee is Nope. People don't do that. They just do the right thing most of the time, dumb things a small fraction of the time. Some people do more dumb things than they should. The Liebeck situation is an edge case. McDonald's sells tens of millions of cups of coffee a day (depending on the source, 10 million/day or 300 million/month or 500 million a month).…

I agree. I don't think anyone actually considers actual temperatures, etc. before they handle a cup of coffee in the same way, they just treat all coffee pretty much the same - i.e. 'a cup of coffee is hot, and will hurt me if I spill it on myself, but it won't be serious / cause permanent damage'. It's for this very reason that I think either coffee shouldn't be served at such dangerous temperatures, or it should be served in such a different manner as to make people think - e.g. with some kind of warning attached. But I agree that you shouldn't take this too far; it's why I probably would choose the latter case of action over the former.

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

#176

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, May 11, 2014, 9:18 PM UTC

Crito wrote: post #171

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People take risks. No-one is going to eliminate all risk from their life. People modify their behaviour according to the risk involved. Putting hot coffee in your lap is a risk, but the level of risk depends on exactly how hot that coffee is. No-one wants coffee of any temperature soaking their lap, but coffee that causes 3rd-degree burns is a lot different from coffee that hurts a bit. I would personally try to avoi…

> but coffee that causes 3rd-degree burns is a lot different from coffee that hurts a bit. Fresh black coffee from just about any shop will cause 3rd-degree burns if you spill it in your lap. Mcdonalds coffee was not somehow unique in that respect, despite opinion to the contrary. In this thread, meaning to condemn Mcdonalds by holding the "reasonable Starbucks" up as an example, Starbucks coffee has been pegged at "…

OK, I'm not a doctor, but presumably that 1-5 seconds difference is very significant. The higher temperature pretty much guarantees permanent damage. The lower temperature at least gives time for clothing to be removed, etc. And the McDonalds coffee was served at least at 180F, so presumably it would definitely cause 3rd degree burns instantly. That just seems way to risky, to me, to be serving as a beverage, which most people would not expect to cause instant 3rd degree burns.

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

#177

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, May 11, 2014, 9:22 PM 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.

Have you read the Aeropress instructions? They recommend water at 175F (80C) [1]

[1] http://aerobie.com/images/AeroPress%20Instructions%20for%20W...

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

#178

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sun, May 11, 2014, 9:35 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #103

andrewguenther wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

This is why I prefer to drink coffee in Italy (which can pretty much claim to be the origin of coffee in the western world) where they serve it warm-hot, but not boiling, and it's delicious. I tend to be on the libertarian side of the 'allowed to do things that might be dangerous' debate, but - in this case - the default (only?) option was 'extremely dangerous', which I don't think is wise.

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

#179

Post by nemo » Sun, May 11, 2014, 11:12 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #165

nemo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tort reform boils down to "I know better than the Bill of Rights, because sometimes I don't like the way people exercise their rights." It's not much different than the thinking behind the cheerleading for other amendments being eroded. McDonalds was egregiously horrible throughout the trial which is why they were hit with punitive damages. "Granny" wanted $20k for the medical expenses of an eight day hospital stay a…

Tort reform boils down to "Getting hurt shouldn't like winning the lottery." FTFY

Creative rephrasing of what I said. It does recap my point well.

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

#180

Post by marcosdumay » Sun, May 11, 2014, 11:18 PM UTC

nemo wrote: post #138

marcosdumay wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've suffered 3rd degree burns more than once, I'm luck they were small. I've burned myself with boiling water, hot pans, soldering irons, weird kinds of fire... I've been inside an ethanol explosion. I can begin to understand how large burns feel, and the little that I can imagine is already plain horrible.

But none of that changes the fact that coffee is a hot drink. When you go into some store, and order some potentially harmful item, you should expect to get a potentially harmful item, and handle it accordingly. It's not the store's fault if you fail at doing so.

(As an unrelated note, insulating cups are dangerous in that they enable careless handling. It's again not the store's fault, consumers demand those cups, but it's something worth warning people about.)