Hacker News Reader

Comment by _Microft | Hacker News Reader

There was a case when a woman in Germany also ate lots of liquorice on a daily basis and developed health problems. The case went to court because she thought that she should have been warned by the producer. It was dismissed with a reason like "common sense dictates that this was a bad idea" (think: "lol, wut? u dumb").

View on HN

> It was dismissed with a reason like "common sense dictates that this was a bad idea" (think: "lol, wut? u dumb").

And this is why Europe is less litigious than the US (that and reasonable healthcare costs): the courts won't stand for frivolous cases.

Reports of frivolous cases in the US are usually PR hit jobs from the company that lost their case.

Eh, I dunno. The default react to a lot of things here on HN is "talk to a lawyer". It feels very different to cultire here in the UK where lawsuits are seen as a last resort.

“Talk to a lawyer” and “initiate a lawsuit” are very different recommendations.

Case in point, the off-maligned McDonald's woman. Take a look at the burns that woman sustained and the facts of the case to see how much of a hit job that was.

Yep. Everyone knows coffee is hot, but it shouldn't be so hot to give someone third-degree burns, fuse her labia together, and require skin grafts.

"loser pays" also has a significant impact

I don't see what's frivolous about it. I hate liquorice but had no idea it was dangerous to consume in quantity,a nd in general I'm quite health/diet conscious.

Here in the UK people would call for the government to regulate that it must be labelled. Then if it wasn't then a lawsuit might be brought. But first port of call is just to get it changed.

it's frivolous because it's silly to think that eating a large amount of anything with total disregard for healthy nutrition won't result in some kind of unhealthy outcome

I think the difference is between "eating a lot of this will make you feel bad" and "eating a lot of this will make you ill and possibly kill you".

Those are quite different levels of unhealthy outcome. The trouble is, people don't think something sold as a candy would fall into the second category.

I don’t know, seems reasonable to me. How many people on the street would know when asked what the safe dosage of liquorice is? Guess most would say it’s no worse than any sugary candy. Is it not similar to an allergy?

Inverse it - how many would think two bags a day, every day was good for their health?

The inverse to "not safe" isn't "good for their health", but "safe" (or at least not less safe than one would expect - i.e. that much sweet liquorice is also going to have a bunch of sugar, which is both widely known and documented on the packaging), which is more reasonable to think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com