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

191–196 of 196 posts

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

#191

Post by Dylan16807 »

waterfowl wrote: post #51
everyone wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But "being at an unsafe temperature" is not integral to coffee being coffee(or good). A marshmallow is not being served in an unnecessarily(and unconventionally) unsafe way. If you bought a superheated marshmallow you could get hurt too.

If you define 'unsafe' as capable of causing third degree burns, it actually is integral. McDonald's could have served significantly cooler coffee, but it still would have been capable of such burns.

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

#192

Post by arrrg »

jemfinch wrote: post #113
stuki wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doc…

And in many cases everything goes well. The system is not completely dysfunctional and I don’t think anyone was claiming that.

This is mostly about exceptional cases.

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

#193

Post by PhasmaFelis »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #185
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, w…

And now we're back to the central misrepresentation, which we've already gone 'round several times in this thread, so pardon me if I quote myself.

Your argument is that everyone knows hot coffee can scald you and it's their own fault if they don't take precautions. If I sell you shampoo with unlisted hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because "everyone knows that getting soap in your eyes hurts?"

Selling a product that is known to be mildly dangerous, in a state that is cripplingly dangerous and lacking appropriate warnings, is a clear public health issue and needs to be punished.

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

#194

Post by dfc »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #187
dfc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would Jurors be random? You think that voir dire is just two attorneys rolling dice?

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

#195

Post by blisterpeanuts »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #193
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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, w…

And now we're back to the central misrepresentation, which we've already gone 'round several times in this thread, so pardon me if I quote myself. Your argument is that everyone knows hot coffee can scald you and it's their own fault if they don't take precautions. If I sell you shampoo with unlisted hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because…

We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

What about the alcohol manufacturers, who knowingly sell you an addictive substance that impairs your driving, damages your brain, causes some people to use extreme violence, and causes fetal alcohol syndrome in babies. My gosh, what could be worse.

The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo? Shampoos are basic, and acid would neutralize the base and result in something like colored water.

Anyway, my argument is not exactly what you stated. Rather, I was pointing out that there is a difference between direct responsibility and responsibility once removed. When you start blaming those who are indirectly responsible for an accident of whatever sort, you are opening up the field to a much vaster field of targets for rapacious lawyers. There has to be a limit, realistically speaking, or society would grind to a halt.

Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous? A clear public health issue? Ridiculous, even if you're just being semi-humorous at this point.

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

#196

Post by PhasmaFelis »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #195
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now we're back to the central misrepresentation, which we've already gone 'round several times in this thread, so pardon me if I quote myself. Your argument is that everyone knows hot coffee can scald you and it's their own fault if they don't take precautions. If I sell you shampoo with unlisted hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because…

We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up? What about the alcohol manufacturers, who knowingly sell you an addictive substance that impairs your driving, damages your brain, causes some people to use extreme violence, and causes fetal alcohol syndrome in babies.…

> We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

If I'm not paying attention while driving and get wrapped around a telephone pole, that's my fault. If my car bursts into flames on a minor fender-bender because the gas tank wasn't placed properly, that's the manufacturer's fault--and I believe there's plenty of legal precedent to support that.

Again, it's about expected/accepted danger vs. unreasonable danger. Not everything can be made marshmallow-safe, but we do expect a reasonable effort to keep hazards within expected bounds.

> The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo?

I dunno! Why would someone serve a beverage meant for human consumption at flesh-melting temperatures? That's pretty ridiculous!

> Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous?

Stella Liebeck was literally crippled by it. I'm not sure what else you want.

Post reply on HN