3 ms·

I think it's far less sue-happy than people think it is - but when you do hear of a ridiculous lawsuit, it will certainly be off-the-wall and for an exorbitant

I think it's far less sue-happy than people think it is - but when you do hear of a ridiculous lawsuit, it will certainly be off-the-wall and for an exorbitant amount of money. Sadly we have a flawed legal system (in oh so many ways) and you will find abusers of the system - and that holds true for any kind of system that can be abused - when they can make a personal gain without much risk. For example, the reason we have a stupid warning on coffee cups about the contents being hot, is because someone decided to sue for getting burned by coffee. This may not have escalated as quickly elsewhere in the world - not because someone wouldn't try it, but perhaps the legal system would have laughed at them instead of allowed for a case to happen. It's not the US culture at blame, and the lack of such people elsewhere in the world who would attempt to make such a lawsuit happen - it's the system that people can easily abuse - and miraculously are able to get away with it. edit: I stand corrected by rfurmani and v0cab below - I actually did read up more about the hot coffee case in the past - and the details completely slipped my mind while posting this. It is not a good example and doesn't really fit the point I was trying to make.

rfurmani 14y ago
Just a nitpick, the hot coffee case wasn't as frivolous as it sounds. McDonalds had been serving its coffee unreasonably hot (190F instead of 140F, which causes third degree burns almost instantly) even though they had previously been warned of the dangers. At one point you have to put a cost to it, so it doesn't just come down to them saving money on refills.
- m_for_monkey 14y ago
  From the Wikipedia: "A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restauran... "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled." http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...
- treerock 14y ago
  Still sounds pretty frivolous. Tea is generally made from a boiling kettle (210F) poured on a teabag. Still millions of us manage that without burning ourselves.
v0cab 14y ago
Are you familiar with the 'hot coffee' case? I mean, have you actually looked into it, beyond "someone decided to sue for getting burned by coffee"?
robin_reala 14y ago
absorbent = exorbitant?
- elliottcarlson 14y ago
  Thanks - that's what I get for posting at 4 in the morning.

rfurmani 14y ago

Just a nitpick, the hot coffee case wasn't as frivolous as it sounds. McDonalds had been serving its coffee unreasonably hot (190F instead of 140F, which causes third degree burns almost instantly) even though they had previously been warned of the dangers. At one point you have to put a cost to it, so it doesn't just come down to them saving money on refills.

m_for_monkey 14y ago
From the Wikipedia: "A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonalds_Restauran... "If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled." http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...
treerock 14y ago
Still sounds pretty frivolous. Tea is generally made from a boiling kettle (210F) poured on a teabag. Still millions of us manage that without burning ourselves.

v0cab 14y ago

Are you familiar with the 'hot coffee' case? I mean, have you actually looked into it, beyond "someone decided to sue for getting burned by coffee"?

robin_reala 14y ago

absorbent = exorbitant?

elliottcarlson 14y ago
Thanks - that's what I get for posting at 4 in the morning.