6 ms·

Read the actual trial history. Your analogies don't reflect what actually happened, which is why you can't understand it. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days

by nemo 12y ago

Read the actual trial history. Your analogies don't reflect what actually happened, which is why you can't understand it. Liebeck was hospitalized for 8 days with multiple skin grafts. She asked asked McDonalds for medical expenses from the injury from the coffee and lost wages (<20k). McDonalds offered $800. At that point she got an attorney. They tried to settle. McDonalds refused. In the trial it came out that McDonalds had more than 700 reports of medical injuries from the coffee that they were aware of. Their internal quality control manager reported that they recognized that they were posing a burn hazard to customers with the heat of their coffee, but that it was a minor concern that they were unwilling to adjust. McDonalds admitted that not only were they burning customers who drank the coffee straight from the cup, many of whom needed medical treatment, but that this was something they were unwilling to change. That's why the jury hit McDonalds with punitive damages of the profits of two day's sales of coffee (which the judge reduced). Through the whole process McDonalds was acting like a criminally negligent bully unconcerned with injuring customers. Punitive damages did correct this.

marcosdumay 12y ago
You mean, from the several million people they served coffee every month, 700 accidents happened? What coffee is not a burn hazard?
- nemo 12y ago
  Something like that. Perhaps you might like to read all about it? I am sure you are aware that cases like this are primarily significant in their individual details, and not in vague generalizations. "What coffee is not a burn hazard?" All coffee is a burn hazard, though the higher the temp. the greater the hazard. Please, if you'd like to reply, and want to refer to burns, do me the huge favor of referring to "third degree burns." It's one of those things that indicates the difference between discomfort and hospitalization, very germane here, especially in the distinction between specific facts and vague generalizations.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    I've suffered 3rd degree burns more than once, I'm luck they were small. I've burned myself with boiling water, hot pans, soldering irons, weird kinds of fire... I've been inside an ethanol explosion. I can begin to understand how large burns feel, and the little that I can imagine is already plain horrible. But none of that changes the fact that coffee is a hot drink. When you go into some store, and order some potentially harmful item, you should expect to get a potentially harmful item, and handle it accordingly. It's not the store's fault if you fail at doing so. (As an unrelated note, insulating cups are dangerous in that they enable careless handling. It's again not the store's fault, consumers demand those cups, but it's something worth warning people about.)
    - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
      Coffee is a hot drink, and it can reasonably be expected to cause burns. However, McDonalds served its coffee at a higher temperature than anyone else in the industry and had been previously warned that their coffee caused more severe burns that would be reasonably expected. Had McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature that a reasonable person would expect it to be served at, they would not have been liable for any burns caused by the coffee. This is why you don't see Starbucks getting sued for coffee burns. McDonalds wasn't sued for serving coffee that is hot enough to cause burns. They were sued for knowingly serving coffee hot enough to cause burns far more severe than a reasonable person would expect and far more severe than the burns caused the coffee served by the rest of the industry.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  Before you jump to that conclusion, please take a look at the actual pictures of Liebeck's burns. I'm not going to link to them directly because they're very gruesome (as well as slightly NSFW[0]), but if you Google "mcdonalds coffee burn", they're the first things that pop up. We're talking burns far beyond anything I assume (hope) you've ever experienced. This case in particular is one that irks me, because it's very easy to distort the facts (and ignore McDonald's wilful negligence, which was mentioned above[1]). [0] You can see her vagina, because the burns were between her legs - though trust me, that's not the part of the picture that will grab your attention. [1] Note that the jury awarded punitive damages - this means that above and beyond the damages owed to Liebeck, they determined that McDonalds needed to be punished financially for their actions; this is a much higher bar than the "typical" civil suit.
  - crusso 12y ago
    Before you jump to that conclusion, please take a look at the actual pictures of Liebeck's burns. At least two people in this thread want me to stare at grisly pictures. Yes, they're awful. I sympathize with the lady for having to go through that pain. That said, I can point you to grisly pictures of car accidents, gun accidents, and animal attacks all day. What does that have to do with understanding the nature of responsibility in our society and the impact of transferring responsibility for all accidents to the providers of products and services that are giving consumers exactly what they're asking for. Good to-go coffee is served hot. That's what consumers want. That's what I want. What do you think that lady would have done all those years ago if McDonalds had served her some 115F coffee? My guess is that most people would take it back and ask for hot coffee. As a matter of ethics, I espouse maximizing individual liberty and consumer choice. It's a bad thing to saddle everyone with lowest-common-denominator products and services because an extraordinarily small minority of people are unable to make decent decisions.
    - chimeracoder 12y ago
      I asked you to look at the pictures because you seemed unfamiliar with the details of the case - and when you're drawing an opinion about a legal case, details really matter. The fact that you say that this is a matter of "an extraordinarily small minority of people [who] are unable to make decent decisions"[0] leads me to believe that you still don't understand the details of this specific case - including details pointed out elsewhere in this thread (let alone available elsewhere online). We're not talking about some hypothetical woman with hypothetically hot coffee from a hypothetical company - we're talking about a specific incident in which the facts are actually very readily available. [0] You also draw a completely false dichotomy when it comes to "individual liberty and customer choice", since that's actually not the issue that was litigated here. If you want to find out the issue that was actually litigated, I'd invite you to read up on the case to the point where you understand that the temperature of the coffee itself wasn't actually the reason that the jury awarded the punitive damages (the civil damages, yes, but not the punitive damages).
sumedh 12y ago
> punitive damages of the profits of two day's sales of coffee (which the judge reduced) Why did the judge reduce the penalty and what is the point of the jury giving a penalty fee which the judge can reduce later?
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  I'm not sure of the judge's reasoning here, but in some cases there is a statutory limit on the damages that can be awarded[0]. So a jury can award any amount that they see fit, but that will be reduced to the maximum amount permissible by law. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727175

by nemo 12y ago

marcosdumay 12y ago

You mean, from the several million people they served coffee every month, 700 accidents happened? What coffee is not a burn hazard?

nemo 12y ago
Something like that. Perhaps you might like to read all about it? I am sure you are aware that cases like this are primarily significant in their individual details, and not in vague generalizations. "What coffee is not a burn hazard?" All coffee is a burn hazard, though the higher the temp. the greater the hazard. Please, if you'd like to reply, and want to refer to burns, do me the huge favor of referring to "third degree burns." It's one of those things that indicates the difference between discomfort and hospitalization, very germane here, especially in the distinction between specific facts and vague generalizations.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  I've suffered 3rd degree burns more than once, I'm luck they were small. I've burned myself with boiling water, hot pans, soldering irons, weird kinds of fire... I've been inside an ethanol explosion. I can begin to understand how large burns feel, and the little that I can imagine is already plain horrible. But none of that changes the fact that coffee is a hot drink. When you go into some store, and order some potentially harmful item, you should expect to get a potentially harmful item, and handle it accordingly. It's not the store's fault if you fail at doing so. (As an unrelated note, insulating cups are dangerous in that they enable careless handling. It's again not the store's fault, consumers demand those cups, but it's something worth warning people about.)
  - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
    Coffee is a hot drink, and it can reasonably be expected to cause burns. However, McDonalds served its coffee at a higher temperature than anyone else in the industry and had been previously warned that their coffee caused more severe burns that would be reasonably expected. Had McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature that a reasonable person would expect it to be served at, they would not have been liable for any burns caused by the coffee. This is why you don't see Starbucks getting sued for coffee burns. McDonalds wasn't sued for serving coffee that is hot enough to cause burns. They were sued for knowingly serving coffee hot enough to cause burns far more severe than a reasonable person would expect and far more severe than the burns caused the coffee served by the rest of the industry.
chimeracoder 12y ago
Before you jump to that conclusion, please take a look at the actual pictures of Liebeck's burns. I'm not going to link to them directly because they're very gruesome (as well as slightly NSFW[0]), but if you Google "mcdonalds coffee burn", they're the first things that pop up. We're talking burns far beyond anything I assume (hope) you've ever experienced. This case in particular is one that irks me, because it's very easy to distort the facts (and ignore McDonald's wilful negligence, which was mentioned above[1]). [0] You can see her vagina, because the burns were between her legs - though trust me, that's not the part of the picture that will grab your attention. [1] Note that the jury awarded punitive damages - this means that above and beyond the damages owed to Liebeck, they determined that McDonalds needed to be punished financially for their actions; this is a much higher bar than the "typical" civil suit.
- crusso 12y ago
  Before you jump to that conclusion, please take a look at the actual pictures of Liebeck's burns. At least two people in this thread want me to stare at grisly pictures. Yes, they're awful. I sympathize with the lady for having to go through that pain. That said, I can point you to grisly pictures of car accidents, gun accidents, and animal attacks all day. What does that have to do with understanding the nature of responsibility in our society and the impact of transferring responsibility for all accidents to the providers of products and services that are giving consumers exactly what they're asking for. Good to-go coffee is served hot. That's what consumers want. That's what I want. What do you think that lady would have done all those years ago if McDonalds had served her some 115F coffee? My guess is that most people would take it back and ask for hot coffee. As a matter of ethics, I espouse maximizing individual liberty and consumer choice. It's a bad thing to saddle everyone with lowest-common-denominator products and services because an extraordinarily small minority of people are unable to make decent decisions.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    I asked you to look at the pictures because you seemed unfamiliar with the details of the case - and when you're drawing an opinion about a legal case, details really matter. The fact that you say that this is a matter of "an extraordinarily small minority of people [who] are unable to make decent decisions"[0] leads me to believe that you still don't understand the details of this specific case - including details pointed out elsewhere in this thread (let alone available elsewhere online). We're not talking about some hypothetical woman with hypothetically hot coffee from a hypothetical company - we're talking about a specific incident in which the facts are actually very readily available. [0] You also draw a completely false dichotomy when it comes to "individual liberty and customer choice", since that's actually not the issue that was litigated here. If you want to find out the issue that was actually litigated, I'd invite you to read up on the case to the point where you understand that the temperature of the coffee itself wasn't actually the reason that the jury awarded the punitive damages (the civil damages, yes, but not the punitive damages).

sumedh 12y ago

> punitive damages of the profits of two day's sales of coffee (which the judge reduced) Why did the judge reduce the penalty and what is the point of the jury giving a penalty fee which the judge can reduce later?

chimeracoder 12y ago
I'm not sure of the judge's reasoning here, but in some cases there is a statutory limit on the damages that can be awarded[0]. So a jury can award any amount that they see fit, but that will be reduced to the maximum amount permissible by law. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7727175