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

41–50 of 196 posts

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

#41

Post by michaelochurch »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

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…

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.

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.

In addition to the serving temperature, one aspect of McDonalds's liability was the quality of the cups and lids: squeezing a coffee cup, with contents at the serving temperature, shouldn't cause the lid to pop.

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

#42

Post by orbitingpluto »

crusso wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #5

I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story) thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!' - hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her third-degree burns . To suggest she was suing over something trivial is horribly disrespectful to a woman who su…

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…

I think the crux of the matter with regards to the coffee temperature is that it's a drive thru restaurant.

While handing over a live chainsaw is at best inadvisable, it is all the more so to throw a live chainsaw into the juggling pattern of a clown on a unicycle.

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

#43

Post by malandrew »

hawkharris wrote: post #38

Hot Coffee is an important documentary for all Americans, but parts of it are especially relevant to those of us who work in tech. The movie shows how arbitration clauses, enforced by many telecomm and software companies, threaten our constitutional rights to bring civil charges against the firms. As one expert in the film puts it, we'd be better off to adopt the term tort deform .

While not a binding arbitration clause in a EULA or ToS, one relevant example to use in tech would be Naval Ravikant (AngelList founder) and the other defendants in the ePinions case. Had arbitration clauses been signed as part of employment, they probably would not have gotten fair equitable relief in that case.

For anyone curious, here's the origin claim as filed: http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/Epinions.pdf

More info: http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/12/09/epinions_settl...

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

#44

Post by michaelochurch »

stormbrew wrote: post #13
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…

That coffee you carefully sipped on probably wasn't as hot as the coffee she spilled on her lap. It's pretty unlikely it was hot enough that if you'd spilled it you would have required re-constructive surgery on your genitals.

That coffee you carefully sipped on probably wasn't as hot as the coffee she spilled on her lap. It's pretty unlikely it was hot enough that if you'd spilled it you would have required re-constructive surgery on your genitals.

He said 195 - 205 °F, which would do that kind of damage, pretty much instantly. That said, I find it unlikely that most people actually enjoy coffee that is that hot. When coffee burns your tongue and you have that annoying (thankfully, temporary) lack of taste for a couple days, that's typically around 180 °F.

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

#45

Post by everyone »

I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was, simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a hammer and then they crush their hand with it? Admittedly from my perspective here in Ireland I may view this differently from yanks. We drink a lot of tea and good tea must be boiling when you add the teabag, also drive-throughs are a lot less common so you will typically not have your beverage in a moving vehicle.

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

#46

Post by waterfowl »

everyone wrote: post #45

I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was, simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a hammer and then they crush their hand with it?…

No, there's hot and there's "almost boiling" and they'd been told several times to stop keeping the coffee that hot but somehow it saved time. Key words from the lawsuit "fused labia." It was not minor burning.

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

#47

Post by malandrew »

michaelochurch wrote: post #41
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…

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. 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. In…

Yup, establishments shouldn't even serve liquids in inadequate containers. Either the customer should provide their own travel mug (such as a zojirushi or thermos nissan mug) or they should provide much safer disposable mugs. The crap cups that McDonalds offers are simply not up to the task.

If necessary, they can do the same thing as SF does with the bag fee:

-- coffee in your own mug costs like 69 to 99 cents. -- coffee in a disposable mug that is adequately safe costs 99 cents plus the cost of the safe mug.

TBH, even for situations where safety isn't a concern, I'd love to see the bag fee concept extended to pretty much everywhere where disposable containers are used.

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

#48

Post by phyzome »

joezydeco wrote: post #37
ams6110 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most McDonalds use standard commercial Bunn coffee makers. Their coffee is about the same temperature as any other restaurant that uses those.

Having worked in an actual McDonald's store back in those days, the holding temperatures on the coffee pots were set higher than normal drinking temperature. The reasoning for this was because people would buy their coffee in the drive-thru or lobby and take it home to drink. The whole concept of actually drinking it in the car was not considered when the holding temps were specified by corporate, not to mention spil…

That may be why the temperature was set the way it was initially, but a big part of the court case was that they had had many instances of people burning themselves on the coffee and had decided it was cheaper to settle repeatedly.

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

#49

Post by A1kmm »

I think the article makes a good case for retaining tort law, but when it comes to people's health and safety, a public health system, combined with government lead scheme to enforce product safety through the criminal courts would be a better answer to some of the problems.

If the government proactively monitored product safety and responded to complaints, it would be able to shut down dangerous practices (and doctors consistently making bad decisions) before problems happen, and also engage in education so that businesses that aren't aware that their products could be dangerous can fix the problems.

If a someone is injured, it is reasonable for the government to pay for this to support the public, because otherwise getting the financial support the unlucky injured person needs depends on being able to afford a lengthy legal battle, and also on the business being unable to pay. In addition, some decisions are a trade-off (especially for doctors); for example, getting an X-ray might increase your chances of cancer, but might also detect a very rare disease; a doctor might reasonably decide, in the patient's best interest, that given the symptoms, the increased risk of cancer is not worth the miniscule risk of not detecting the disease. If the patient is then severely injured by the disease, should the doctor have to pay out? If the patient gets support from the government either way, then the question doesn't need to be answered. It is likely that malpractice suits encourage doctors to minimise the risk that the patient can prove a tort, rather than to act in the best interests of the patient - it is very hard to prove that a particular X-ray contributed to cancer later in life.

This is also fairer to businesses, because when a certain decision is unsafe relative to other practices but has a low probability of resulting in a lawsuit, most small or medium sized business engaging in the risky practice may never actually have the bad outcome happen, purely due to luck. If the government prosecutes unsafe practices, rather than the civil courts award punitive damages when unsafe practices lead to a bad outcome, businesses are discouraged or prevented from 'playing the lottery', and the desired public policy outcome of fewer unsafe practices is more directly achieved. Likewise, businesses that play it safe by industry standards but, through bad luck, have a bad outcome are not over-punished for being unlucky (this applies especially to doctors making necessary trade-offs).

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

#50

Post by everyone »

waterfowl wrote: post #46
everyone wrote: post #45

I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was, simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a hammer and then they crush their hand with it?…

No, there's hot and there's "almost boiling" and they'd been told several times to stop keeping the coffee that hot but somehow it saved time. Key words from the lawsuit "fused labia." It was not minor burning.

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 "harmless" marshmallow from a sweet shop and then kill myself with it, by using it to block my airway.
Post reply on HN