4 ms·

People have sued McDonald's for serving hot coffee in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck

People have sued McDonald's for serving hot coffee in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...

bdhe 15y ago
Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit. Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked. * The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines. * The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting * Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,000 largely to cover medical expenses; third-degree burns, an eight-day hospital stay which lead her to lose 20 lbs.
- albedoa 15y ago
  Do you think it is understandable that someone might know all of the facts of the suit and still consider it a farcical lawsuit, if not a textbook example of one? I ask because those facts are often presented with the presumption that the person crying frivolousness hasn't considered them before forming his opinion.
- cletus 15y ago
  No argument that McDonald's should've settled for medical costs when they had the chance. Yes the coffee was too hot but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout. The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you were not responsible... because you were intoxicated. The punishment for vehicular manslaughter is WAY lower than other unlawful killings, if it's even tried as that. It's so hard to get vehicle-related felonies convicted that often they'll be settled for lower severity crimes (reckless driving and so forth). But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel? The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, in spite of the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts, ultimately it boils down to rewarding people for being stupid.
  - bdhe 15y ago
    But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel? I am not a lawyer, but I believe, firstly, this is largely orthogonal to the original discussion, and secondly, my understanding behind why it is considered manslaughter is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
  - halostatue 15y ago
    Lieback wasn't driving.
  - kwis 15y ago
    > but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked. > The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.
- bellaire 15y ago
  You forgot the most salient point: At that temperature, the styrofoam was so soft (though not quite melted) that after removing the lid, it collapsed on itself. So she "spilled" the coffee by assuming that the cup would retain its shape without a lid. Since it was so hot, it did not, the cup collapsed, and she was burned.

People have sued McDonald's for serving hot coffee in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurant...

bdhe 15y ago

Argh, this is actually a very legitimate case. It is rather unfortunate that in most people's eyes this is viewed as a textbook example of a farcical lawsuit. Some points, which are mentioned in the very wiki article you linked. * The coffee was about 45F or 20C higher than McDonald's guidelines. * The coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafting * Liebeck initially only asked to be compensated $18,000 largely to cover medical expenses; third-degree burns, an eight-day hospital stay which lead her to lose 20 lbs.

albedoa 15y ago
Do you think it is understandable that someone might know all of the facts of the suit and still consider it a farcical lawsuit, if not a textbook example of one? I ask because those facts are often presented with the presumption that the person crying frivolousness hasn't considered them before forming his opinion.
cletus 15y ago
No argument that McDonald's should've settled for medical costs when they had the chance. Yes the coffee was too hot but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. Reasonable care would've prevented this injury and that's my problem with the ridiculous payout. The law has many failings like this. For example, if you become intoxicated, get in a vehicle and manage to kill someone then the law largely says you were not responsible... because you were intoxicated. The punishment for vehicular manslaughter is WAY lower than other unlawful killings, if it's even tried as that. It's so hard to get vehicle-related felonies convicted that often they'll be settled for lower severity crimes (reckless driving and so forth). But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel? The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, in spite of the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the facts, ultimately it boils down to rewarding people for being stupid.
- bdhe 15y ago
  But who got intoxicated in the first place? Who didn't take reasonable steps to avoid getting behind the wheel? I am not a lawyer, but I believe, firstly, this is largely orthogonal to the original discussion, and secondly, my understanding behind why it is considered manslaughter is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- halostatue 15y ago
  Lieback wasn't driving.
- kwis 15y ago
  > but... she put the cup between her legs while driving. No she didn't. She was a passenger and the car was parked. > The McDonald's case is the poster child for frivolous litigation because, It's the poster child because if you don't bother to learn any of the facts, it sounds outrageous. And the world is full of people who can't be bothered to learn the facts before they form strong opinions.
bellaire 15y ago
You forgot the most salient point: At that temperature, the styrofoam was so soft (though not quite melted) that after removing the lid, it collapsed on itself. So she "spilled" the coffee by assuming that the cup would retain its shape without a lid. Since it was so hot, it did not, the cup collapsed, and she was burned.