Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It's literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability.
Edit 2: someone here provided the additional type of information that I was interested in. It wasn't just the temperature, but also that the cup had a design flaw that made it likely to collapse if you took the lid off. Thanks!
From the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
> she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
I'd highly recommend looking up details of the case if you think it was frivolous.
It quite literally burnt/melted part of her vagina onto her leg/part of body that was not her vagina. I think pictures are out there if you google for them, it’s been quite a while but IIRC pretty gruesome.
Well, yes and no. The temperature of the coffee was only partially the reason. What made McDonald's actions appear malicious rather than accidental (therefore increasing their culpability) was the fact that McDonald's knew the coffee was too hot but continued to serve it anyway.
> Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[37][38] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[38] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).
So according to this page you've linked, the coffee was not unusually hot and McDonalds and Starbucks are presently serving coffee just as hot that could give you 3rd degree burns today.
(Since people in this thread seem so jumpy, let me explicitly disclaim that I think the lawsuit and outcome were warranted because she was severely burned as a consequence of McDonald's defective cup design.)
If that's the case (and no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff), that's a superheated liquid. In other words, it is a liquid above its own boiling point and waiting for a cavitation event (something for bubbles to hold on to) to instantly boil. And this seems to coincide with the coffee explosion and burns from the plantiff.
Mythbusters video of an example of superheated water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0
Downthread? Because you're being obtuse and, when people answer, asking a bunch more questions that you could easily google the answers to. It's not coming off as a good-faith discussion.
Of course some people really do intentionally be difficult, but OP's question was not near enough info to conclude that, and his additional responses were after he got slammed with downvotes (which usually bother people)
The questions read as slanted. This is a warning sign that you're dealing with someone who's already made up their mind and is just looking to argue. That "just" especially is... a red flag.
That on its own might not mean much, but then, there's this entire post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870
Which looks like a continuation of exactly that kind of thing. Asking questions in a one-sided way, demanding others do things for you even when they already pointed you in the right direction, hostile tone, et c. Even if done innocently, this style of posting can't be tolerated because it's a beloved trolling/shitposting tactic.
Someone else on here brought up that the design of the cup was defective. That was the type of information I was looking for. Even some Google searching was not bringing up that for me, probably because like this thread, most people are focused on just the injury and the temperature. The cup issue really added to my understanding of the case, and answered my question about why it was not a frivolous case.
I'll let it stand as a general description of why people may react negatively to certain kinds of post.
I'm similar, but I've come to recognize that the default of communication is asshole, and the best method to avoid that is to ensure you're meeting others halfway in a conversation.
I imagine most would agree that the parent comment's statement "Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees?" comes off as somewhat ignorant in that they could have done a quick Google search or asked less defensively if they genuinely wanted an answer. Their followup comment is even worse.
Another commenter brought up the defective cup design here. This was the type of info I was looking for related to culpability that I couldn't find. This is what I like about HN - the google search results were not useful since it's (appearently) such a divisive topic, but a well informed HN'er had the additional info.
I think what I'd do here is start a new top-level comment like "Some other comments are talking about the McDonalds thing. Does anyone have any more details on this? Was it just that the coffee was too hot, or where there other factors that made that a lawsuit?"
McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing.
The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs.
She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling.
The award was later reduced.
If the answer to bad corporate behaviour is not regulation, but rather lawsuits, then that lawsuit perfectly encapsulated the series of legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor, that has been alerted of a problem in their product, and refuses to resolve it.
Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings/awards.
"The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs."
That's an outcome/result. That has no real bearing on the culpability.
"She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn't interested in settling."
Again, nothing speaking to culpability here.
"The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard."
Ok, so this is basically what my comment said. It seems 185 is about 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. It also has a warning on it (jury said it's not big enough, but maybe we should have everyone sign waivers first?).
"legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor"
Depends on your viewpoint as to who is "bad".
Edit: why disagree with this?
The part about bad corporate actors was not specific to the McDonalds example. I was merely saying that we could label any company as bad. For example, some might say abortion clinics are bad, while others might say gun makers are bad.
It just seems like you are very set in your views and are demanding that we all argue with you, and if that's the case, make a new post about the mcdonald's case because this thread isn't even about that.
> Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings/awards. ... > Edit: why disagree with this?
You're asking internet randos to explain something to you that is an easily researched matter of public record. I too used to think the McDonald's coffee case was a punchline for an overly litigious America. Then I read the horrifying details.
Also I don't know if you realize it but your comments are making you come across as a major <rude adjective of choice> which is likely why you're getting downvotes.
Then, the case was rediscovered by a popular podcast ("You're Wrong About") so a lot of people now have the opposite perspective and anger at how it all played out.
None of this justifies downvoting and I upvoted you. But I can understand how people might see someone asking questions as performing a "just asking questions!" legerdemain.
I'd say online communities have been having this reaction for at least a decade. In 2011 a documentary came out partially about the case, Hot Coffee, and since then most mentions of the McDonalds case I've seen have turned into a version of this conversation.
Actually, it probably even predates that film. The first Wikipedia entry for the case in 2003 says
>Based on this summary, the case has become emblematic of frivolous and outrageous lawsuits for many people, and is often used as an example of the need for tort reform in the United States legal system. The summary, however, omits a large amount of relevant information.
I would imagine the legal cases decided that McDonalds was not taking reasonable precautions to account for their much hotter than usual coffee. No amount of written warnings or even signed waivers will protect you from negligence, at least in most US states.
>> People did not realize how seriously they could be burned. All McDonald's restaurants served coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. At this temperature, spilled coffee causes third degree burns in less than three seconds. Other restaurants served coffee at 160 degrees, which takes twenty seconds to cause third degree burns. That is usually enough time to wipe away the coffee.
and https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/products-l...
>> As noted above, the jury found that McDonald's had sold a defective product and had also breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. A warranty is like a promise. An implied warranty is something that exists whether or not you have a piece of paper titled "Warranty". An implied warranty of merchantability means that the goods sold conform to the ordinary standards of care and that they are of average grade, quality and value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances. Put more simply, when you buy a cup of coffee at McDonald's, you have a right to expect that it will be pretty much the same as the coffee you could buy at any similar drive-thru. An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose exists when the retailer, distributor, or manufacturer has reason to know the particular purpose for which the consumer goods are required, and that the buyer is relying on the skill and judgment of the seller to select and furnish suitable goods. In the case of coffee purchased at its drive-thru, McDonald's would know that the buyer of the coffee wanted to drink it and that the buyer is relying on McDonald's to sell coffee that the buyer can drink. When the McDonald's employee hands the customer the cup of coffee, it is as if McDonald's is saying, "I promise this coffee is drinkable and that the cup it is served in is suitable." If the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are breached, or the promise is broken, then the manufacturer, distributor, and/or seller of the product are liable or responsible for the consequences.
"She was hospitalized for eight days while undergoing skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment."
We know why coffee vendors make the coffee so hot. It expresses more caffeine. It is very simple. They decided that the value in keeping consumers addicted was worth the risk.
But the biggest issue that I don't see mentioned most times this case is brought up is that the coffee cups at that time were defective by design. They relied on the lid for structural integrity. When you grasped the cup and squeeze it hard enough to keep it from falling, then if the lid pops off the cup collapses and the cup falls, spilling scalding liquid on you. Notice that the current cups don't crush as easily even without a lid on, they still hold their structure when squeezing it hard enough to pick it up.
Also, the old cups would cause discomfort when holding them, which indicates that the liquid lost a lot of its thermal energy to the environment in a short amount of time. Due to that, customers that had to transport their coffee for some distance before wanting to drink it would want it to be served hotter than normal. Then it would be the perfect temperature when they get to their classroom / office. The newer cups have much better insulation properties, so this is less necessary.
1) The cup design is much, much sturdier. Not just at McDonald's, almost everywhere has sturdier cups.
2) The store usually puts cream and sugar in it rather than handing it to the customer to put it in themselves - that's what Stella was doing at the time she spilled.
3) cup holders are now plentiful and ubiquitous in cars - the car that Stella's grandson was driving didn't have cup holders so she had to grip the cup with her knees to open the cream/sugar.
https://online.vwu.edu/news/criminal-justice/culpability/
WHAT IS CULPABILITY?
Culpability “refers to the blameworthiness of the accused,” according to the definition provided by USLegal. When the court determines that the accused is culpable for a crime, the accused is considered to have an appropriate understanding that what the person did was wrong.
Being culpable implies that an action (or neglect of an action) is immoral, wrong or illegal. It does not, however, always imply malicious intent on the part of the wrongdoer. It simply means liable or blamable. A liable person is answerable for inappropriate actions.
For example, if you are driving on a busy street, lose focus and crash into another vehicle, then you are responsible for your action. Because you didn’t mean to cause harm, it’s called culpable negligence. It’s understood to have been unintentional, but you are still held accountable.
Strong disagree.
It comes to duty of care, and failing that duty is the culpable act. It has nothing to do with intent to cause harm, rather with the lack of intent to pay enough attention to avoid a collision. Otherwise fault is not found (e.g. a third car pushed them into the first)
> "Normally you don't get 3rd degree burns..."
It was normal.
"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000."
>The severity of tap water scalds depends on the temperature of the water and the length of time the skin is exposed. Human exposure to hot water at 140°F can lead to a serious burn within 3 seconds, whereas at 120°F a serious burn takes about 10 minutes. Because thinner skin burns more quickly, children and older adults are at increased risk. Young children are disproportionately affected by scald burns, as approximately 21,000 children are treated for scald burns from all causes each year, and scald burns represent an estimated 65% of burn hospitalizations for children ages 4 and under. Hot tap water causes nearly 25% of all scald burns and is associated with more scald burn deaths and hospitalizations in children than any other hot liquid.
The coffee was turbo-hot--far in excess of standards that exist.
McDonald's had been warned about this before.
The design of the cup had it's own issues.
The woman's initial lawsuit was for perfectly reasonable medical expenses given the horrible nature of the injuries.
And, in response, McDonald's went completely nuclear.
So, when McDonald's lost, THAT'S why they got hammered.
And, even then, the award amount later got reduced, but nobody remembers that.
Edit: case in point - this comment is currently in negative and I literally have no idea why, I've been commenting on this site for almost 10 years and this is one topic that is always guaranteed to attract downvotes no matter the context.
There’s a lot of behaviour there that goes against the guidelines of most forums.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
HN's rules around faux-politeness make it extremely susceptible to this kind of attack: not everyone is actually acting in good-faith and it makes discussions extremely tedious dealing with sealions who exploit that to drag the discussions of interest to a halt while the bad-faith user demands that we engage in a lengthy discussion of basic underlying points to keep from engaging the actual topic of discussion. Oh, but if you say it then you're the bad guy, because we have this rule!
Again, why are we re-litigating a discussion about mcdonald's coffee on a topic about workplace harassment? Literally the only connection is they're both lawsuits. There's been a ton of words written about something that is entirely off-topic, because of this sealioning from the parent. That is textbook, open-and-shut, exactly what this tactic is designed to do.
The person who asked the question didn't even bring it up.
There is no harm done by answering a bad faith question in good faith. But there is harm done in treating a good faith question as bad faith.
Unless someone is repeatedly spamming a venue, this whole sealioning thing is just people caring too much about who "wins" on the internet.
There absolutely can be.
That is the primary misconception which is exploited by the sealion tactic. It allows a bad-faith individual to reverse the position of offender and victim - because what harm is there in just asking a good-faith question?
Questions are still part of an argument, they are "leading" the reader. And addressing it carries the implication that it's a valid position worthy of respect and time to address it.
And some questions can be very noxious indeed and do need to be stifled outright - "what good has [minority group] ever done for us" is quite a harmful question even if the answer is legitimately "lots"! And again, even merely by bringing it up, and by addressing it in response, you've given it legitimacy both as a question around that particular group, and to the idea that groups need to justify their existence/presence in society. Those are both very harmful things done merely by "answering a bad-faith question in good faith".
Again, perhaps a more core value disagreement is that "good-faith discussion" can legitimately solve all woes, including malicious actors. That is really the basis of your "no harm can be done by answering a bad-faith question in good faith", is it not? That seems like magical thinking to me.
Anyway, "no harm can ever be caused by answering a bad-faith question with a good-faith response" is quite a broad position, perhaps you can cite some evidence or studies on that one, because there's rather trivial examples like hate speech that definitely run against it.
Not if people downvote rather than responding to nonproductive contributions. The problem isn't the rules around good faith when responding, the problem is people feeling obliged to respond.
One is not obligated to respond, something it took me an excessively long time to learn. The correct thing to do if you feel it is being done in bad faith -- or for any reason feel it's unproductive -- is stop replying.