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

61–70 of 196 posts

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

#61

Post by saalweachter »

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.

Also, from the article, the burns were so severe that she went into shock.

> “All I remember is trying to get out of the car,” Liebeck later related. “I knew I was in terrible pain.” She went into shock and her grandson rushed her to the emergency room, where she would undergo surgery and receive skin grafts.

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

#62

Post by eksith »

RealGeek wrote: post #53

I highly recommend watching a documentary called Hot Coffee ( http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp ). It goes into details about how corporate lobbying eroded consumer rights.

Perhaps you should scroll down a tad. The linked article discusses that same documentary extensively.

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

#63

Post by mindslight »

malandrew wrote: post #47
michaelochurch wrote: post #41

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. 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. -- c…

As much as I'd like to see less general waste, it's important to keep in mind that any large disposable hot coffee cup is a flimsy piece junk with the lid removed, millions are sold per day, those lids even sometimes pop off, and yet we're talking about a 22 year old case for its remarkability.

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

#64

Post by dredmorbius »

knodi wrote: post #27

How can arbitration be legally exist... never agree to arbitration.

Good luck with that.

There are numerous standard-form contracts (particularly in healthcare) in which that's not an option.

Though I would strongly argue to not agree to arbitration if you have any choice in the matter. If provided with a contract in which arbitration is a condition, strike and initial. It's now up to the other side.

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

#65

Post by notdonspaulding »

eksith wrote: post #62
RealGeek wrote: post #53

I highly recommend watching a documentary called Hot Coffee ( http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp ). It goes into details about how corporate lobbying eroded consumer rights.

Perhaps you should scroll down a tad. The linked article discusses that same documentary extensively.

Yeah, both the movie and Saladoff's interviews are linked extensively in the article. To the point where I'm wondering if it isn't Priceonomics business model to write undergrad or grad-level blog posts for pay.

Anyone know how they choose their topics?

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

#66

Post by DanBC »

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?…

People might expect coffee to be hot, but they do not expect the coffee to be hot enough to kill.

She suffered full thickness burns. This is a significant wound. The burns were on her legs and genitals. That turns it into a medical emergency - rush to nearest hospital, let them stabilize you and send you to a different hospital that specializes in burns.

Also, the car was not moving at the time of the accident.

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

#67

Post by ensignavenger »

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…

Thats an interesting perspective- any studies that show that Texas doctors are significantly worse than doctors in other states?

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

#68

Post by stuki »

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…

Reputation systems, reviews and properly skeptical consumers, are what to aim for, in determining who is good and who is not. Whether for restaurants or doctors. Not frightfully pricey lawyers and other coercive, after-the-fact institutions. And, in the most egregious of cases, say McDonald's spiked granny's coffee with a hand grenade, the criminal courts get involved as a last ditch anyway.

Reliance on civil courts may sound attractive to the naive, but the lawyers and institutions involved, are just as single mindedly focused on their own personal gains, financial and in prestige, as either party to the original dispute. It's not that they are necessarily systemically partial to one side or the other, but rather that they are partial to making the fight as acrimonious and expensive as possible. As that is, after all, their "side."

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

#69

Post by DanBC »

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…

The severity of the injuries is important because McDonalds had ignored many previous accidents and had ignored a CDC request to reduce the temperature.

Reducing the temperature reduces the severity of the injuries.

Using your marshmallow analogy: if you sold the marshmallows in individual plastic shells and children started eating the marshmallows by sucking them out of the shells, and children were sometimes choking because they were inhalling the confection, and you were told about this but ignored it, then yes you probably should bear some responsibility.

I case you think this is unlikely: http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2011/mar/jellycupba...

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

#70

Post by nemo »

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?…

She tried to settle for $20k for medical expenses and lost wages but McDonalds offered $800. McDonalds had more than 700 reports of injuries from the coffee. Their internal quality control manager reported that they recognized that they were posing a burn hazard to customers with the heat of their coffee, but that it was a minor concern that they were unwilling to adjust.

McDonalds admitted that not only were they burning customers who drank the coffee straight from the cup, many of whom needed medical treatment, but that this was something they were unwilling to change.

That is clearly not frivolous. She tried to settle. She was not looking for a big score. In the process of discovery the company was openly belligerent about their plan and willingness to continue to pose a public safety risk.

Post reply on HN