4 ms·

You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. Disposable coffee lids in the US changed drastically following this lawsuit. It took a few years, bu

You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. Disposable coffee lids in the US changed drastically following this lawsuit. It took a few years, but the quality of disposable cups/libs used to serve hot beverages to-go is vastly higher than it used to be. I'm surprised that you don't know that... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes. But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Manufacturers are held to surprisingly high standards in the US, and McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern. Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. Legal hypotheticals are sometimes useful analytical tools, but you have to actually construct the hypo case to distinguish a relevant legal principle or fact pattern... Your example does none of that. It's just an obvious tautology, and there's not really any argument contained in it. Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.

nate_meurer 5y ago
> You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. ... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes. Go ahead and cite some of that scholarship. I would genuinely love to see it. Explain how the current designs, which are still subject to coffee spill lawsuits, differ from those before Stella's lawsuit. Then explain why, if the lid was inadequate for its purpose, Stella's lawyers specifically cited her difficulty in prying off the lid as the proximate cause of the accident. Otherwise, your detour into lids and cups is a bit of a distraction. The primary allegation, and the one most parroted by sympathetic media and trial lawyers to this day, was that McDonalds' coffee was a defective product due to outrageously excessive temperature, far beyond industry standards or best practices. Nowadays the trial lawyers like to claim that the lawsuit forced McDonalds to drastically lower the temperature of their coffee. I don't know whether you also believe these easily debunked claims, but you sure seem eager to redirect the debate in a direction where you know I don't disagree as strongly. It's kinda weird. > But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Guilty as charged! > McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern. Right, I definitely remember personal injury lawyers and opponents of tort reform acting "shocked". They still do. No surprise there. And almost every single one of them lies about the temperature issue. > Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. I don't expect it to prove anything. I'm simply curious how you feel about strict liability as applied to other dangerous but common products, where the the issue of whether the product is safe for its intended or anticipated use is in dispute. It's a simple if unimportant question, which you appear unable to answer. > Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions. Hmmm, I sure don't feel very emotional about this. My strongest emotion is, like I said, contempt for McDonalds' influence on peoples' health. And again, I was happy that Stella bill's were paid. EDIT: Seriously though, please cite that "scholarship" on lids and cups you mentioned. I'm skeptical, and it's somewhat tangential to the more sensationalized allegations made by Stella's lawyers, but I'm also genuinely curious.

nate_meurer 5y ago

> You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. ... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes. Go ahead and cite some of that scholarship. I would genuinely love to see it. Explain how the current designs, which are still subject to coffee spill lawsuits, differ from those before Stella's lawsuit. Then explain why, if the lid was inadequate for its purpose, Stella's lawyers specifically cited her difficulty in prying off the lid as the proximate cause of the accident. Otherwise, your detour into lids and cups is a bit of a distraction. The primary allegation, and the one most parroted by sympathetic media and trial lawyers to this day, was that McDonalds' coffee was a defective product due to outrageously excessive temperature, far beyond industry standards or best practices. Nowadays the trial lawyers like to claim that the lawsuit forced McDonalds to drastically lower the temperature of their coffee. I don't know whether you also believe these easily debunked claims, but you sure seem eager to redirect the debate in a direction where you know I don't disagree as strongly. It's kinda weird. > But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Guilty as charged! > McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern. Right, I definitely remember personal injury lawyers and opponents of tort reform acting "shocked". They still do. No surprise there. And almost every single one of them lies about the temperature issue. > Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. I don't expect it to prove anything. I'm simply curious how you feel about strict liability as applied to other dangerous but common products, where the the issue of whether the product is safe for its intended or anticipated use is in dispute. It's a simple if unimportant question, which you appear unable to answer. > Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions. Hmmm, I sure don't feel very emotional about this. My strongest emotion is, like I said, contempt for McDonalds' influence on peoples' health. And again, I was happy that Stella bill's were paid. EDIT: Seriously though, please cite that "scholarship" on lids and cups you mentioned. I'm skeptical, and it's somewhat tangential to the more sensationalized allegations made by Stella's lawyers, but I'm also genuinely curious.