3 ms·

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 suff

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.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>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.
- projektfu 5y ago
  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.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>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.

projektfu 5y ago
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.