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

51–60 of 196 posts

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

#51

Post by waterfowl »

everyone wrote: post #50
waterfowl wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "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.

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

#52

Post by Karunamon »

aaronem wrote: post #19
Karunamon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise with the memory thing, but I think they were brewing it at the National Coffee Association recommended temperature. Anyways, I don't think the 'greedy' angle has any merit to it. One pack (mcdonalds coffee comes in these premeasured packets) is good for exactly one urn of coffee, and you (and the customer..) will instantly know if you reused it because the result is terrifically light and unpleasant to drink…

Well, you know, you can get away with poor trigger discipline for years on end without hurting anyone, and then one particularly careless day you negligently discharge your firearm into someone's head. In what way does the former make up for the latter?

The fact that 700ish burns in a few years compared against 10ish million cups of coffee a day is a statistical anomaly that doesn't require the intervention of the legal system?

I still disagree with the ruling in that case. They still brew the coffee at the same temperature but now with lawyer safe "Caution: Hot stuff is hot!" markings on the cups. As if anyone with functioning brain cells wasn't aware of this.

Yes, 700 people manage to burn themselves in a few years and meanwhile 3.5 billion in a single year don't have any problem and the problem is obviously with the company selling the coffee instead of the 700 people who mis-handled a cup of scalding hot liquid. Give me a damn break.

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

#54

Post by mindslight »

andrewguenther wrote: post #31
andrewtbham wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The downside of cases like this is, if they stand, we end up with cold coffee. We end up with no products or services that have any risks. We all get treated like morons because of liability reasons. And we will have to pay a premium for any product that can be misused. Thankfully, coffee is still served at the same temperatures, and the only change was added a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonal…

No, we wouldn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Different people enjoy their coffee at different temperatures. Those who enjoy drinking steam should be able to make that choice without being "protected" from themselves.

I'd love it if the serving temperature of the coffee became more of a prominent option - I personally have to let freshly brewed coffee sit for ~20 minutes to be drinkable, and I even go so far as to delay adding cream (if I am going to) so that it loses heat quicker. But I still respect that my preference isn't universal.

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

#55

Post by rayiner »

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…

The other thing is that common attempts at tort reform like damages caps address exactly the wrong problem. You're worried about frivolous suits, but the ones where juries are persuaded to award large damages are the least likely to be frivolous. Its good to note that BP had a limitation on damages that was like $50 million, which they waived.

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

#56

Post by gscott »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #42
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…

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.

Echoing your point, I can't tell you how many spilled soda's have happened at the drive through with me. Sometimes the lids are not put on right and when I go to grab the cup it collapses spilling into my lap.

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

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?…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by joezydeco »

phyzome wrote: post #48
joezydeco wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I was only rebutting the parent comment about how the coffee urns were not set to a temperature different than any other restaurant.

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

#59

Post by jdmichal »

retr0grad3 wrote: post #4

My wife is a defense attorney that works claims litigation, e.g insurance defense for carriers. Watching "Hot Coffee" was very difficult for her. Part of her job during the pre-trial phase of any case is to push as much potential liability on a claimant as possible and push for mediation; trial should be avoided at all cost. |If a case goes to trial it is her job to make the claimant liable (enough) so that the damag…

> As a side note, in insurance cases in Texas, the jury is not allowed to know that any insurance money has been paid. So in a situation where someone is hurt in an accident by another driver then sues for medical expenses, the jury is not told that the medical expenses (are often) already paid for by the carriers. They're also not told that, no matter how much money they award, if it falls under the civil caps on awards (in Texas) that the judge will automatically lower their award after they leave the court room.

I agree with most of those points. Yes, the jury does not know them, and that effects their decisions. Knowing those things would also effect their decisions. Because that's how decisions work. Therefore, the stance you must take is, which scenario will yield results which are more appropriate?

I assume the jury is also not told whether the defendant has liability insurance against the results of the very case being deliberated either, which is a point just as salient. To me, it should not make any difference whether someone had the foresight to insure themselves when being awarded damages.

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

#60

Post by jdmichal »

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?…

> We drink a lot of tea and good tea must be boiling when you add the teabag.

But yet, iced tea and iced coffee both exist. The temperature required to make a substance has no correlation to the temperature it must be served at.

Post reply on HN