How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by unreal37 » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:24 AM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #75

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…

Have you ever had McDonalds coffee? It's not as though we're talking about the stuff you get after it's been through a civet cat's digestive system, where it's scarce and expensive and you really want to extract it at the recommended 200 degrees Fahrenheit to get every last molecule you can of the volatiles out of the beans, so that you aren't wasting your investment. McDonalds coffee, conversely, is just plain old s…

All the hyperbole is not really adding to the conversation.

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

#92

Post by unreal37 » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:30 AM UTC

andrewtbham wrote: post #18

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…

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…

Actually, my understanding is that McDonald's actually reduced the serving temperature of it's coffee for a decade or more after this lawsuit.[1]

[1] http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862/real-details-hot-coffee...

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

#93

Post by SilasX » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:33 AM UTC

nemo wrote: post #88

stuki wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any coffee heated to the point where it is still drinkable at the end of a 20 minute commute, will be hot enough to kill if poured straight down your throat in one gulp. It is up to the customer to have some sort of clue. I am pretty sure that when granny makes coffee herself at home, she makes it at least as hot as McDonalds serves it. Whistling kettles and all. In a country of millions of people doing stuff, someti…

Tort reform boils down to "I know better than the Bill of Rights, because sometimes I don't like the way people exercise their rights." It's not much different than the thinking behind the cheerleading for other amendments being eroded. McDonalds was egregiously horrible throughout the trial which is why they were hit with punitive damages. "Granny" wanted $20k for the medical expenses of an eight day hospital stay a…

>Tort reform boils down to "I know better than the Bill of Rights, because sometimes I don't like the way people exercise their rights." It's not much different than the thinking behind the cheerleading for other amendments being eroded.

The right to defend yourself in a criminal trial does not imply the right to bring in all kinds of inflammatory, irrelevant evidence.

Likewise, the right to a civil trial does not imply total jury autonomy in dictating the punishment. If that were so, there would be no point to eg rules of evidence, judges reducing damages, etc.

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

#94

Post by stuki » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:38 AM UTC

karmajunkie wrote: post #73

stuki wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with that theory is that many doctors require patients to sign documents that prohibit online reviews, and many "bad reviews" from patients are somewhat frivolous. So reputation management is largely worthless in the medical field. Additionally, in Texas for example, tort reform has done nothing to limit costs of healthcare (though it has made malpractice insurance much cheaper, which makes life nice for…

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.

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

#95

Post by DanBC » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:39 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #74

aaronem wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've argued the substance of the issue elsewhere in this thread, and don't feel a need to restate points which you so evidently have no interest in considering. From a purely pragmatic stance, though, may I suggest you hang your argument for tort reform off some case other than one in which someone's genitals had to be rebuilt more or less from scratch?

That tends to happen when you dump hot things where hot things shouldn't go. The same kind of idiocy that leads to the absurd list of obvious warnings on products that we all like to make fun of. Irons warning you not to use them on clothes you're wearing. Baby strollers telling you to remove the baby before collapsing it. Coffee cups telling you the contents may, indeed, be hot. Is the severity of the self-inflicted…

> Such as sticking crushable cups of scalding hot liquid between your legs in a situation where your legs will not remain static

You know the car was not moving at the time, right? And that McDonalds changed the warning on the cups and changed the style of cups?

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

#96

Post by stuki » Sun, May 11, 2014, 4:51 AM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #86

stuki wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reviews are for people that don't know statistics. Mostly what you get are unhelpful bimodal distributions, hardly a way to redress serious grievances. I think your discount of civil court is either naive itself or just o early cynical to the same effect.

Reviews weighted by trust, seem to do quite well in most places where they are employed. From Amazon and Ebay sellers to Uber drivers to College rankings. Even yelp rankings, which are extremely unspecific, seems to provide users with waay better than random ability to pick the good from the bad. Even when it comes to doctors, as a matter of fact.

I would honestly be very, very surprised if they didn't end up working substantially better for medical doctors than for most other service providers. As, at least in my experience, very few people who decide to though the effort of becoming a doctor, do so with the express intent of scamming their way to riches, the way many Ebay and Amazon sellers do.

I am sure that in some selected cases, an aggressive tort system could be construed to have provided a better outcome, but at what systemic cost? Massive over treatment of every conceivable low probability condition, to stave off grounds for lawsuits. Doctors scared of going with their hunches, and instead of doing what they feel is the best for the patient, doing what they expect will be easiest to defend if the outcome should be less than ideal.....

Doesn't forcefully injecting an expensive and completely unconcerned outside party, into an arrangement between two parties that are outcome concerned, strike you as an inefficient use of resources? Why not, instead, try to find ways to make the two concerned parties understand each other better?

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

#97

Post by stuki » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:01 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #84

stuki wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any coffee heated to the point where it is still drinkable at the end of a 20 minute commute, will be hot enough to kill if poured straight down your throat in one gulp. It is up to the customer to have some sort of clue. I am pretty sure that when granny makes coffee herself at home, she makes it at least as hot as McDonalds serves it. Whistling kettles and all. In a country of millions of people doing stuff, someti…

She didn't ask for coffee that would stay hot after a twenty minute commute. She asked for coffee. She was served coffee hotter than other places served coffee. Other places had listened to and responded to the CDC's warning about beverage serving temperatures and had reduced the temperature of the drinks that they served while still allowing people to order extra hot drinks. Yes, when a kettle boils the water is at…

And as she didn't specifically ask for coffee served at a specific temperature, McDonald's had no way of knowing what temperature she preferred.

What McDonald's did have, however, was a way to estimate what temperature it's customers in general prefer their coffee served at. Roadside Coffee is, after all, a pretty competitive market. If you're too far off temperature wise, people go elsewhere.

Hence, by the standards of "the community", or whatever you wish to call them, McDonald's served coffee at the right temperature. Or at least close enough not to offend enough of them to lose measurable business.

Out of curiosity, did McDonald's manage to poor milk into the cup, and still have it end up that hot? Maybe I have weird ideas about coffee, but for someone all too used to lukewarm coffee once milk is added, that actually sounds quite impressive for such a decidedly low rent establishment.

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

#98

Post by saryant » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:08 AM UTC

ensignavenger wrote: post #67

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?

Texas has some of the best doctors in the world and an innovative healthcare community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center

> The Texas Medical Center is the largest medical center in the world with one of the highest densities of clinical facilities for patient care, basic science, and translational research. Located in Greater Houston, the center contains 54 medicine-related institutions, including 21 hospitals and eight specialty institutions, eight academic and research institutions, three medical schools, six nursing schools, and schools of dentistry, public health, pharmacy, and other health-related practices. All 54 institutions are not-for-profit. The center exceeds one thousand acres (or 1.562 square mile) in size. [...] The Center is where one of the first and largest air ambulance services was created and where one of the first successful inter-institutional transplant programs was developed. More heart surgeries are performed in Texas Medical Center than anywhere else in the world.

(Ironically, the TMC came about through a tax dodge)

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

#99

Post by stuki » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:10 AM UTC

nemo wrote: post #88

stuki wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any coffee heated to the point where it is still drinkable at the end of a 20 minute commute, will be hot enough to kill if poured straight down your throat in one gulp. It is up to the customer to have some sort of clue. I am pretty sure that when granny makes coffee herself at home, she makes it at least as hot as McDonalds serves it. Whistling kettles and all. In a country of millions of people doing stuff, someti…

Tort reform boils down to "I know better than the Bill of Rights, because sometimes I don't like the way people exercise their rights." It's not much different than the thinking behind the cheerleading for other amendments being eroded. McDonalds was egregiously horrible throughout the trial which is why they were hit with punitive damages. "Granny" wanted $20k for the medical expenses of an eight day hospital stay a…

Rather, tort reform, or more accurately some sort of limitations of what one can drag the civil courts system into, boils down to looking at who wrote the Bill of Rights, and making an estimate as to whether it is reasonable to believe they intended them to be used to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars for spilling coffee on oneself. Or, more pointedly, hundreds of thousands in legal fees by lawyers.

Did we really have cases like this, back when the Bills' authors were still alive? Otherwise, doesn't all this brouhaha look like it boils down to little more than someone getting paid very well to conveniently misunderstand what the Bills were intended to mean? Paid better, in fact, than if instead of harassing others, they simply went out and solved the problem they perceive exist, by selling perfect temperature coffee themselves.

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

#100

Post by DanBC » Sun, May 11, 2014, 5:20 AM UTC

stuki wrote: post #97

DanBC wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She didn't ask for coffee that would stay hot after a twenty minute commute. She asked for coffee. She was served coffee hotter than other places served coffee. Other places had listened to and responded to the CDC's warning about beverage serving temperatures and had reduced the temperature of the drinks that they served while still allowing people to order extra hot drinks. Yes, when a kettle boils the water is at…

And as she didn't specifically ask for coffee served at a specific temperature, McDonald's had no way of knowing what temperature she preferred. What McDonald's did have, however, was a way to estimate what temperature it's customers in general prefer their coffee served at. Roadside Coffee is, after all, a pretty competitive market. If you're too far off temperature wise, people go elsewhere. Hence, by the standards…

> What McDonald's did have, however, was a way to estimate what temperature it's customers in general prefer their coffee served at. Roadside Coffee is, after all, a pretty competitive market. If you're too far off temperature wise, people go elsewhere.

Yes. They had 700 previous burns cases that they settled out of court (including some very serious full thickness burns). They were serving coffee that they admitted was not fit for consumption (because they knew it would burn the mouth at the temperature it was served at). They knew they were serving coffee at higher temperatures than other places selling coffee. They knew they were serving coffee at a higher temperature than people have it at home.