10 ms·

What a lot of people get wrong about the 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit

64 points by gscott 10y ago

steveeq1 10y ago
Yes, downvote instead of proving me wrong.
- dang 10y ago
  This comment breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to complain about downvotes or bait other users into downvoting. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13213204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13213204 and marked it off-topic.
- nekopa 10y ago
  I upvoted both your comments, as I do believe they contribute to the discussion. But I do have a question to ask you: When do you feel that statistical significance shouldn't matter? And in what context? Lets say 171 billion people get a life saving drug, but 700 die. There I can agree with you. 171 billion people get coffee, and 700 are maimed. I think that maybe you should pay their medical bills. And maybe throw a few extra bucks in for good measure. 171 billion people generated a lot of profit. Losing $1.4 billion is not a bad deal
maxxxxx 10y ago
I have read about this before and I'd agree that McDonald's were just dicks. It's sad that this story went through the press and nobody ever bothered looking a little closer.
steveeq1 10y ago
Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule. Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... (in "aftermath" section)
KindDragon 10y ago
Adam Ruins Everything - The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ
- steveeq1 10y ago
  The other side's point of view: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    We've been hearing the other side's point of view for years in the papers, on commercials, in the news and on talk shows all painting an elderly woman whose genitals were melted off as a parasite trying to take advantage of a large corporation. This is the first bit of dialogue from the site's video: HOST: "What do you think of the movie?" FIGLEY: "I saw it as propaganda. Well done propaganda... But, propaganda." So says the panel of tort reform supporting lawyers and professors.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    This is connected to the "U.S. Institute for Legal Reform" which in turn is connected to "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" who are not good people.
    - bb88 10y ago
      The WHOIS for the domain proves him right: https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Domain Administrator Registrant Organization: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Registrant Street: 1615 H Street NW, Registrant City: Washington Registrant State/Province: DC Registrant Postal Code: 20062 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.2026596000 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: @uschamber.com Edited to add: The piece makes the point that the film "Hot Coffee" is propaganda. I believe that gives me leeway to do the same here.
nekopa 10y ago
This is a very light treatment of an important case. It didn't go into the extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to pay for her medical expenses. Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee sales. But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs, but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still continues today. Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now defunct, it was devoted to finding really stupid law suits, and debunking urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an issue. I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which. Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real. Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of the lawn mower. There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.
- steveeq1 10y ago
  That was 700 complaints out of 171 BILLION customers over the course of 10 years. This is statistically nothing.
  - bsder 10y ago
    $20,000 x 700 cases = $14,000,000 out of $1,000,000 PER DAY in coffee revenue over decades is also statistically nothing. McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office. McDonalds got off lightly.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Wasn't that case then used to justify laws making “frivolous” lawsuits harder?
gondo 10y ago
this article seems to only describe what you can see in the video (already linked in other comments) and does not add any value, apart from advertisement, but that value doesn't go to the reader.
- toki5 10y ago
  I can't view the video here, so reading the article was valuable to me.
  - gondo 10y ago
    sure that happens to me sometimes. but there is always: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Doesn't add value for you, perhaps. Because of the article, I didn't feel a need to watch the video - and since I strongly dislike watching videos (they tend to be noisy and demand more of my attention for a longer time than I am willing or able to give), it worked out quite well for me.
smtpserver 10y ago
NY Times also had a retro report on this case: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-...
sdevoid 10y ago
See also: the 2011 documentary film "Hot Coffee" about the case and so called tort reform in the US legal system. http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/ http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/
- steveeq1 10y ago
  Also be sure to explore "the other side" after watching that movie: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything else.
  - sdevoid 10y ago
    So these videos are hosted on Youtube by the U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform, which describes itself as "a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone." The website says "The views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform." Yea, but who setup this slick panel and presumably paid these lawyers, moderator and editors? Edit: Looking at their arguments in each episode: 1. Intros and general reactions and opinions. No direct argument here. 2. Definition of tort in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase civil harm. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc. 3. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold. 4. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare. 5. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad apples' 6. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims. Overall I think it's surprising that all panelists are in agreement on each issue. :-)
    - steveeq1 10y ago
      ad hominem. Attack the arguments presented in the video, not the arguers. edit: the message that I replied too got heavily edited after the fact.
torgoguys 10y ago
I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190 degrees should make you liable for people's handling of a known hot product. Heck, if I sell you 212 degree water and it is no secret that it is super hot, what did I do wrong? Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing severe damage. Please help me understand the other side of the story.
- drvdevd 10y ago
  My all time favorite explanation: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  No human can drink 212 degree water, so you can't sell it calling it a beverage.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    No human can drink 190 degree coffee, yet many humans consider perfectly normal to ask for one.
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      Why would anyone ever do that? Are they going to put it on a thermos and drive around with it until lunch?
      - torgoguys 10y ago
        I've read elsewhere that if you order Starbucks coffee "extra hot" it comes out at about 180 degrees. Some people recommend you order that temperature sometimes: http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... MCD here was routinely serving it at 180-190.
drvdevd 10y ago
Read the awesome Too Much Coffee Man version please: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/
- js2 10y ago
  The epilogue and the last two frames are excellent.
jasikpark 10y ago
Adam Ruins Everything did a video debunking many of the myths about the case. https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ
evansj 10y ago
Warning, video / audio starts as soon as the page loads.

64 points by gscott 10y ago

steveeq1 10y ago

Yes, downvote instead of proving me wrong.

dang 10y ago
This comment breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to complain about downvotes or bait other users into downvoting. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13213204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13213204 and marked it off-topic.
nekopa 10y ago
I upvoted both your comments, as I do believe they contribute to the discussion. But I do have a question to ask you: When do you feel that statistical significance shouldn't matter? And in what context? Lets say 171 billion people get a life saving drug, but 700 die. There I can agree with you. 171 billion people get coffee, and 700 are maimed. I think that maybe you should pay their medical bills. And maybe throw a few extra bucks in for good measure. 171 billion people generated a lot of profit. Losing $1.4 billion is not a bad deal

maxxxxx 10y ago

I have read about this before and I'd agree that McDonald's were just dicks. It's sad that this story went through the press and nobody ever bothered looking a little closer.

steveeq1 10y ago

Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous". The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule. Source (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... (in "aftermath" section)

KindDragon 10y ago

Adam Ruins Everything - The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ

steveeq1 10y ago
The other side's point of view: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  We've been hearing the other side's point of view for years in the papers, on commercials, in the news and on talk shows all painting an elderly woman whose genitals were melted off as a parasite trying to take advantage of a large corporation. This is the first bit of dialogue from the site's video: HOST: "What do you think of the movie?" FIGLEY: "I saw it as propaganda. Well done propaganda... But, propaganda." So says the panel of tort reform supporting lawyers and professors.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  This is connected to the "U.S. Institute for Legal Reform" which in turn is connected to "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" who are not good people.
  - bb88 10y ago
    The WHOIS for the domain proves him right: https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Domain Administrator Registrant Organization: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Registrant Street: 1615 H Street NW, Registrant City: Washington Registrant State/Province: DC Registrant Postal Code: 20062 Registrant Country: US Registrant Phone: +1.2026596000 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: @uschamber.com Edited to add: The piece makes the point that the film "Hot Coffee" is propaganda. I believe that gives me leeway to do the same here.

nekopa 10y ago

This is a very light treatment of an important case. It didn't go into the extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to pay for her medical expenses. Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee sales. But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs, but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still continues today. Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now defunct, it was devoted to finding really stupid law suits, and debunking urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an issue. I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which. Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real. Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of the lawn mower. There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.

steveeq1 10y ago
That was 700 complaints out of 171 BILLION customers over the course of 10 years. This is statistically nothing.
- bsder 10y ago
  $20,000 x 700 cases = $14,000,000 out of $1,000,000 PER DAY in coffee revenue over decades is also statistically nothing. McDonald's judged that injuring people and pounding them with lawyers was more cost effective than customers not having hot coffee after they drove to the office. McDonalds got off lightly.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Wasn't that case then used to justify laws making “frivolous” lawsuits harder?

gondo 10y ago

this article seems to only describe what you can see in the video (already linked in other comments) and does not add any value, apart from advertisement, but that value doesn't go to the reader.

toki5 10y ago
I can't view the video here, so reading the article was valuable to me.
- gondo 10y ago
  sure that happens to me sometimes. but there is always: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy
GrinningFool 10y ago
Doesn't add value for you, perhaps. Because of the article, I didn't feel a need to watch the video - and since I strongly dislike watching videos (they tend to be noisy and demand more of my attention for a longer time than I am willing or able to give), it worked out quite well for me.

smtpserver 10y ago

NY Times also had a retro report on this case: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-...

sdevoid 10y ago

See also: the 2011 documentary film "Hot Coffee" about the case and so called tort reform in the US legal system. http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/ http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/

steveeq1 10y ago
Also be sure to explore "the other side" after watching that movie: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything else.
- sdevoid 10y ago
  So these videos are hosted on Youtube by the U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal Reform, which describes itself as "a national campaign, representing the nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone." The website says "The views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform." Yea, but who setup this slick panel and presumably paid these lawyers, moderator and editors? Edit: Looking at their arguments in each episode: 1. Intros and general reactions and opinions. No direct argument here. 2. Definition of tort in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase civil harm. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc. 3. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold. 4. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare. 5. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad apples' 6. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims. Overall I think it's surprising that all panelists are in agreement on each issue. :-)
  - steveeq1 10y ago
    ad hominem. Attack the arguments presented in the video, not the arguers. edit: the message that I replied too got heavily edited after the fact.

torgoguys 10y ago

I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190 degrees should make you liable for people's handling of a known hot product. Heck, if I sell you 212 degree water and it is no secret that it is super hot, what did I do wrong? Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing severe damage. Please help me understand the other side of the story.

drvdevd 10y ago
My all time favorite explanation: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/
prodigal_erik 10y ago
No human can drink 212 degree water, so you can't sell it calling it a beverage.
- user5994461 10y ago
  No human can drink 190 degree coffee, yet many humans consider perfectly normal to ask for one.
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    Why would anyone ever do that? Are they going to put it on a thermos and drive around with it until lunch?
    - torgoguys 10y ago
      I've read elsewhere that if you order Starbucks coffee "extra hot" it comes out at about 180 degrees. Some people recommend you order that temperature sometimes: http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... MCD here was routinely serving it at 180-190.

drvdevd 10y ago

Read the awesome Too Much Coffee Man version please: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/

js2 10y ago
The epilogue and the last two frames are excellent.

jasikpark 10y ago

Adam Ruins Everything did a video debunking many of the myths about the case. https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ

evansj 10y ago

Warning, video / audio starts as soon as the page loads.