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

181–190 of 196 posts

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

#181

Post by hswoo2 »

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…

In Australia if you had an aortic aneurism such that it was highly likely for you to die anyway it is highly unlikely for you have any claims in the tort of negligence as it requires a gross negligence on the part of the doctor such that it has a substantial link to the causation of the death. There also defences of necessity - that is the person is dying therefore it is necessary for the doctors to take all measures to save the patient. Thus it is probably significantly difficult for a person to be successful in medical malpractice unless it was blatantly largely caused by the doctor alone.

I also would guess that the US would have a similar legal system, which allows for such defences from such claims.

It seems that if courts are paying out too much this is not an issue to do with people making frivolous claims and cashing in but with the way the judiciary is deciding on the claims. If it was more difficult for claims to be successful in court this would stamp out such claims instead of imposing monetary caps which don't allow for the flexibility to compensate each individual case.

I find it strange that the legislature is getting involved in an area which is really up to the judiciary to perform its function...

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

#182

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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 honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

On the off chance that you're not, though: you can buy hydrochloric acid and pour it in your eyes if you really want to, but you should also have an expectation that ordinary hair care products won't have surprise deadly acid in them. Similarly, you can pour boiling water in your lap on purpose if that turns you on, but no one should be handing you a cup of flesh-melting liquid and telling you that it's fit for immediate consumption.

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

#183

Post by PhasmaFelis »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #170

What a strange article to feature on Hacker News, front page two days running. Written by a kid just out of college, with little or no life experience, no legal expertise, and quoting biased sources like a liability lawyer to make his rather whimsical case about "eroding the 7th Amendment". It sparked a tiresomely predictable debate about hot coffee, as happens every time this case comes up; there are always a couple…

> I got burned on the thigh very close to my genitals, it hurt, it blistered. I got over it. They didn't charge me for the coffee. Life went on.

I'm glad to hear that you made a full recovery from your minor-but-painful burn. I doubt you would be so cheery about it if the clumsy waitress had maimed you and left you on the hook for $10,000 in medical bills.

This is why the Liebeck case always causes such controversy: there's a substantial group of people who are absolutely determined to argue with a made-up strawman instead of the actual facts. I genuinely don't understand why.

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

#184

Post by PeterisP »

higherpurpose wrote: post #124

> 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.

To actually get the money and end it, instead of spending a lot more extra time, effort and money throughout the appeals process.

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

#185

Post by blisterpeanuts »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #183
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #170

What a strange article to feature on Hacker News, front page two days running. Written by a kid just out of college, with little or no life experience, no legal expertise, and quoting biased sources like a liability lawyer to make his rather whimsical case about "eroding the 7th Amendment". It sparked a tiresomely predictable debate about hot coffee, as happens every time this case comes up; there are always a couple…

> I got burned on the thigh very close to my genitals, it hurt, it blistered. I got over it. They didn't charge me for the coffee. Life went on. I'm glad to hear that you made a full recovery from your minor-but-painful burn. I doubt you would be so cheery about it if the clumsy waitress had maimed you and left you on the hook for $10,000 in medical bills. This is why the Liebeck case always causes such controversy:…

"Made-up straw man"? Rather harsh, not to mention totally missing the point.

There's a bit of a difference between spilling it on oneself and being spilled on by someone else. That's not a straw man argument at all. It's a tangential anecdote. Yes, indeed, had she caused me $10,000 in medical harm, it's possible and likely I would have sought compensation from her employer. But had I spilled the decanter on myself, which is the point of the Liebeck case, that would be a different thing entirely.

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

#186

Post by TheCoelacanth »

marcosdumay wrote: post #180
nemo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pote…

Coffee is a hot drink, and it can reasonably be expected to cause burns. However, McDonalds served its coffee at a higher temperature than anyone else in the industry and had been previously warned that their coffee caused more severe burns that would be reasonably expected.

Had McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature that a reasonable person would expect it to be served at, they would not have been liable for any burns caused by the coffee. This is why you don't see Starbucks getting sued for coffee burns.

McDonalds wasn't sued for serving coffee that is hot enough to cause burns. They were sued for knowingly serving coffee hot enough to cause burns far more severe than a reasonable person would expect and far more severe than the burns caused the coffee served by the rest of the industry.

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

#187

Post by lifeisstillgood »

dfc wrote: post #174
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Well I have only ever been in one population to be honest, so maybe. But it is probably pretty random, so I would be quite shocked if there was a dramatic difference in demographics of both.

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

#189

Post by Dylan16807 »

vidarh wrote: post #122
travisp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Unless they serve the coffee at a completely unrealistic temperature, someone out of millions will be regularly injured. So how many people are still injured at 160 degrees?

The fact that someone gets hurt does not prove that there was negligence. Compare how many people get into car accidents on the way to McDonalds.

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

#190

Post by Dylan16807 »

konstruktor wrote: post #163
robryk wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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._McDonal…

How else would she add the sugar that was provided separately from the already closed cup? This was "by design".

Using a cup holder or going inside so that it wouldn't be a completely full uncapped cup squeezed between her legs?
Post reply on HN