Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicoburns | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"loser pays" also has a significant impact

Reply on news.ycombinator.com