3 ms·

>If you've been sued once for something, you cannot be sued again (and again, and again) Double jeopardy doesn't prevent someone from opting out of a class act

by smeyer 11y ago

>If you've been sued once for something, you cannot be sued again (and again, and again) Double jeopardy doesn't prevent someone from opting out of a class action lawsuit and suing separately. >hot coffee lawsuit The hot coffee case wasn't a class action lawsuit.

btilly 11y ago
Double jeopardy doesn't prevent someone from opting out of a class action lawsuit and suing separately. Yes. But one individual probably does not have sufficient injury to represent a meaningful case for the company. The point is that you've blocked a second, larger, class action lawsuit. Which is what the company is actually scared of. The hot coffee case wasn't a class action lawsuit. You're right. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Interchange_Fee_and_Merchant_Discount_Antitrust_Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Interchange_Fee_an... for a more meaningful class action lawsuit.
thedrbrian 11y ago
Also the hot coffee lawsuit wasn't as stupid as people make out. The McDonald's coffee really was hot and gave Stella Liebeck some nasty burns.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  HBO ran a documentary on it and tort reform in general a few years ago; it wasn't just that she had been badly burned, but that there was a string of McDonald's coffee burn cases with smaller rewards and the jury felt that the company needed to be punished for negligence at that point. The award was many, many times larger than what Liebeck asked for.
  - dominicmauro 11y ago
    The punitive damages were also roughly the amount of money McDonald's makes selling coffee in one or two days, according to a contemporaneous WSJ report: http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%20...
- ska 11y ago
  It's a terrible example for many reasons. One that is more often misapplied than not.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  It's just as stupid for people who believe in personal liberty and responsibility and it didn't make companies serve coffee any colder.They just put 'Hot Coffee' on the lids now, what a huge win.
- ivanca 11y ago
  Even if the coffee had kill her is still stupid; lets put it this way: making the coffee inhumanly hot is just as smart as cleaning the cups with cyanide, but we don't have a law that forbids cup cleaning with cyanide (or a silly message in every cup about it)
  - encoderer 11y ago
    Nor do we have a law against hot coffee. But if you do something negligent or with foreseeable harm then you may be liable, as McDonald's was, in a tort.
  - forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
    I don't understand your comment. We don't clean cups with cyanide. What point are you trying to make?
  - vacri 11y ago
    Coffee and tea are usually made with boiling or close-to-boiling water. Water in an open container at sea level simply can't get much hotter than 'boiling'. The argument that the coffee was 'too hot' seems specious. Instead, the design of the cup is the more important issue - the company was serving hot coffee in a cup that was prone to failure.

by smeyer 11y ago

btilly 11y ago

Double jeopardy doesn't prevent someone from opting out of a class action lawsuit and suing separately. Yes. But one individual probably does not have sufficient injury to represent a meaningful case for the company. The point is that you've blocked a second, larger, class action lawsuit. Which is what the company is actually scared of. The hot coffee case wasn't a class action lawsuit. You're right. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Interchange_Fee_and_Merchant_Discount_Antitrust_Litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Interchange_Fee_an... for a more meaningful class action lawsuit.

thedrbrian 11y ago

Also the hot coffee lawsuit wasn't as stupid as people make out. The McDonald's coffee really was hot and gave Stella Liebeck some nasty burns.

ascagnel_ 11y ago
HBO ran a documentary on it and tort reform in general a few years ago; it wasn't just that she had been badly burned, but that there was a string of McDonald's coffee burn cases with smaller rewards and the jury felt that the company needed to be punished for negligence at that point. The award was many, many times larger than what Liebeck asked for.
- dominicmauro 11y ago
  The punitive damages were also roughly the amount of money McDonald's makes selling coffee in one or two days, according to a contemporaneous WSJ report: http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%202361/Misc/McDonalds%20coffee.pdf http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business%20Law%20...
ska 11y ago
It's a terrible example for many reasons. One that is more often misapplied than not.
cmdrfred 11y ago
It's just as stupid for people who believe in personal liberty and responsibility and it didn't make companies serve coffee any colder.They just put 'Hot Coffee' on the lids now, what a huge win.
ivanca 11y ago
Even if the coffee had kill her is still stupid; lets put it this way: making the coffee inhumanly hot is just as smart as cleaning the cups with cyanide, but we don't have a law that forbids cup cleaning with cyanide (or a silly message in every cup about it)
- encoderer 11y ago
  Nor do we have a law against hot coffee. But if you do something negligent or with foreseeable harm then you may be liable, as McDonald's was, in a tort.
- forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
  I don't understand your comment. We don't clean cups with cyanide. What point are you trying to make?
- vacri 11y ago
  Coffee and tea are usually made with boiling or close-to-boiling water. Water in an open container at sea level simply can't get much hotter than 'boiling'. The argument that the coffee was 'too hot' seems specious. Instead, the design of the cup is the more important issue - the company was serving hot coffee in a cup that was prone to failure.