Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

vkou

The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard.

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.

View on HN

"McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing."

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?

Gosh, if only you were there to defend that poor multinational corporation 20 years ago!

I'm not sure what you mean. All I wanted to know was the reasoning behind the culpability. Saying "other successful suites" is like saying "because it always worked that way". It doesn't show the reasoning.

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.

Watch this movie as it explains everything, it wasn't a frivolous lawsuit like it was always portrayed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBKRjxeQnT4

I think people are just somewhat annoyed because your comments seem argumentative. This is a very famous case and there is tons of material online to read, including the court documents themselves! I have also heard from friends who went to law school that this is used as an example of a case that isn't a frivolous lawsuit despite appearances.

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.

Genuinely not sure if you're trolling or not, but....

> 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.

All the links I got talked about the temperature or were random opinions about the case. Someone else in this thread brought up the defective cup design as the other point of culpability. That's the sort of information that I was looking for but couldn't find.

There's a lot more context that can't be explained easily in the size of the average HN comment. When the McD representative was asked by the judge when/how they were planning to fix these burning/scalding issues the McDonald's employee was extremely nonchalant and casual, and indicated that they didn't really care about it. That was also a major factor in the case.

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.

It is because people who were around at the time got to watch much of the media joke around this woman's suffering, never acknowledging the severe harm she suffered. Many people joked that they, too, were going to burn themselves and collect their reward. The minimization of her injury and shock at the size of the initial reward was used as part of a campaign to make other legitimate lawsuits difficult and protect clearly bad actors.

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.

>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

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.

It would be interesting to know how many people have been "converted" by which debunking. I remember the case and everyone I knew, everyone, looked at it as an example of tort litigation gone awry. I didn't hear the opposite opinion in liberal NY. Then I believe I read an article somewhere along the way and it changed my perspective. Nevertheless, I still hear the "can you believe someone spilled coffee on themselves and made millions of dollars, and that's why we can't have nice things" bit all the time, so there are a lot more people who may eventually discover it.

Why do you work so hard to get it wrong?

If the coffee is overly hot and multiple people have been severely burned, at some point, the company selling an obviously dangerous product and handing it to people in cups that are flimsy enough to crush between your legs is partially to blame. What if the coffee was 220 degrees and still boiling when they hand it to you, but you warn people on the cup? You still don't see any culpability?

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.

https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/

>> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com