4 ms·

Anyone who trots out Liebeck v. McDonald's as an example of a "bad" lawsuit is just demonstrating that they're operating from a position based more on opinion t

by rosser 11y ago

Anyone who trots out Liebeck v. McDonald's as an example of a "bad" lawsuit is just demonstrating that they're operating from a position based more on opinion than fact. Liebeck sued McDonald's for actual costs of her medical treatment. McDonald's refused to pay for her injuries or admit fault. The jury awarded the massive punitive damages ($160,000 in actual damages and $2.7M in punitive) of their own volition, because the company's behavior was so egregious, was just one incident in an ongoing chain of similar ones (and for which they'd settled previous claims), and was obviously responsible for the third degree burns she suffered beneath her clothing. Please check your facts next time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

frenchie14 11y ago
I don't think the parent comment was referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's "as an example of a 'bad' lawsuit." I think they were using it as a point to demonstrate what happens when a company gets sued by a force outside of their control. I know it's easy to jump on someone over this often mis-quoted lawsuit, but please pay more attention to the context next time.
btilly 11y ago
You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I never stated an opinion either way on whether this was a bad lawsuit. My statement was that it was a lawsuit launched without the cooperation of the company. Which is definitely true in that case. That said I did need to check my facts because I called it a class action lawsuit when it wasn't. But that issue is completely unrelated to anything that you said.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I wouldn't call this a mistake. It is a very accurate heuristic not just in this particular case but in online discussions in general. There will be errors, but deploying a heuristic instead of a perfect algorithm makes great sense when dealing with the internet. Less acceptable for something like a scientific paper.
  - svalorzen 11y ago
    So you won't bother reading what other people are saying, and instead will resort to spewing retorts based on your preconceived notions of what other people are stating? You must be a fun person to discuss with. I'd say actually reading may be a better approach rather than to use an heuristic.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >So you won't bother reading what other people are saying Perhaps you should read what I wrote then, because what I wrote was about a heuristic to identify intentions based on what was read. Would you suggest that in face to face discussions body language should ignored when it disagrees with what a person says?
- rosser 11y ago
  While I won't deny not having given your comment as careful a reading as I perhaps could have, my motivation in posting my own had more to do with staving off a torrent of follow-ups that all came from the place of "opinions over facts" that I decried than it did criticism of your position. My apologies for my ambiguity. I could have been far clearer about what I was trying to say, and my motivations for having said it.
  - GFischer 11y ago
    I wanted to single out your comment as an example of a gracious apology and what I presume is the desired level of discourse at the Hacker News community. I see both parts of the discussion are among the older members of HN, glad to see they're setting a good example :)
Crito 11y ago
There actually are two sides of this story. First off, the lawsuit was justified, but not because of the temperature of the coffee. The coffee was being served at industry standard temperatures (defined in terms of what _other_ companies in the industry serve their coffee at), despite what many claim. The primary problem is that their coffee cup design was defective, and was prone to collapsing. In response to the lawsuit, McDonald's has not changed the temperature of their coffee. If you order a black coffee at a McDonald's today (or at many other shops), it may very well be just as hot as the coffee that disfigured Liebeck in 1994. So for the love of god, don't spill coffee on yourself! Coffee as cool as 140F can cause third degree burns in mere seconds. That is well below what anybody serves coffee at. Coffee is dangerous. It's just that simple. http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaur... Where did this meme of "Liebeck v. McDonald's was actually 100% reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool" come from? In the immediate aftermath of the lawsuit, many Americans became extremely critical of any personal injury lawsuits. It appeared as though if it continued, the livelihoods of personal injury lawyers might be threatened. So an informal propaganda campaign was launched, featuring some selective truth (the burn photographs) and some lies (the idea that the coffee served to her was way hotter than coffee you and I are used to). These sort of lawyers are extremely good at being convincing, that is pretty much their job after all, and in a non-adversarial context it is not suprising that they are able to convince most people.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  So an informal propaganda campaign was launched, featuring some selective truth (the burn photographs) and some lies (the idea that the coffee served to her was way hotter than coffee you and I are used to). Exactly. The other effect is to move the Overton window. Prior to the propaganda campaign, those of us who would have said Liebeck wasn't even entitled to compensation for her actual medical costs would have been branded as unsympathetic and a bit cold-hearted. Now, we'd be considered baby-eating monsters with opinions too radical to be a part of public discourse. These sort of lawyers are extremely good at being convincing, that is pretty much their job after all, and in a non-adversarial context it is not suprising that they are able to convince most people. It's like the old adage, "Don't make enemies with people who buy ink by the barrel," taken to the next level. Lawyers ru(i)n almost everything in America.
Area12 11y ago
I accidentally gave you an upvote (I'm a noob at this UI) and I can't figure out how to take it back. Please read the thing you are replying to before replying next time.

by rosser 11y ago

frenchie14 11y ago

I don't think the parent comment was referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's "as an example of a 'bad' lawsuit." I think they were using it as a point to demonstrate what happens when a company gets sued by a force outside of their control. I know it's easy to jump on someone over this often mis-quoted lawsuit, but please pay more attention to the context next time.

btilly 11y ago

You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I never stated an opinion either way on whether this was a bad lawsuit. My statement was that it was a lawsuit launched without the cooperation of the company. Which is definitely true in that case. That said I did need to check my facts because I called it a class action lawsuit when it wasn't. But that issue is completely unrelated to anything that you said.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I wouldn't call this a mistake. It is a very accurate heuristic not just in this particular case but in online discussions in general. There will be errors, but deploying a heuristic instead of a perfect algorithm makes great sense when dealing with the internet. Less acceptable for something like a scientific paper.
- svalorzen 11y ago
  So you won't bother reading what other people are saying, and instead will resort to spewing retorts based on your preconceived notions of what other people are stating? You must be a fun person to discuss with. I'd say actually reading may be a better approach rather than to use an heuristic.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >So you won't bother reading what other people are saying Perhaps you should read what I wrote then, because what I wrote was about a heuristic to identify intentions based on what was read. Would you suggest that in face to face discussions body language should ignored when it disagrees with what a person says?
rosser 11y ago
While I won't deny not having given your comment as careful a reading as I perhaps could have, my motivation in posting my own had more to do with staving off a torrent of follow-ups that all came from the place of "opinions over facts" that I decried than it did criticism of your position. My apologies for my ambiguity. I could have been far clearer about what I was trying to say, and my motivations for having said it.
- GFischer 11y ago
  I wanted to single out your comment as an example of a gracious apology and what I presume is the desired level of discourse at the Hacker News community. I see both parts of the discussion are among the older members of HN, glad to see they're setting a good example :)

Crito 11y ago

There actually are two sides of this story. First off, the lawsuit was justified, but not because of the temperature of the coffee. The coffee was being served at industry standard temperatures (defined in terms of what _other_ companies in the industry serve their coffee at), despite what many claim. The primary problem is that their coffee cup design was defective, and was prone to collapsing. In response to the lawsuit, McDonald's has not changed the temperature of their coffee. If you order a black coffee at a McDonald's today (or at many other shops), it may very well be just as hot as the coffee that disfigured Liebeck in 1994. So for the love of god, don't spill coffee on yourself! Coffee as cool as 140F can cause third degree burns in mere seconds. That is well below what anybody serves coffee at. Coffee is dangerous. It's just that simple. http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaur... Where did this meme of "Liebeck v. McDonald's was actually 100% reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool" come from? In the immediate aftermath of the lawsuit, many Americans became extremely critical of any personal injury lawsuits. It appeared as though if it continued, the livelihoods of personal injury lawyers might be threatened. So an informal propaganda campaign was launched, featuring some selective truth (the burn photographs) and some lies (the idea that the coffee served to her was way hotter than coffee you and I are used to). These sort of lawyers are extremely good at being convincing, that is pretty much their job after all, and in a non-adversarial context it is not suprising that they are able to convince most people.

CamperBob2 11y ago
So an informal propaganda campaign was launched, featuring some selective truth (the burn photographs) and some lies (the idea that the coffee served to her was way hotter than coffee you and I are used to). Exactly. The other effect is to move the Overton window. Prior to the propaganda campaign, those of us who would have said Liebeck wasn't even entitled to compensation for her actual medical costs would have been branded as unsympathetic and a bit cold-hearted. Now, we'd be considered baby-eating monsters with opinions too radical to be a part of public discourse. These sort of lawyers are extremely good at being convincing, that is pretty much their job after all, and in a non-adversarial context it is not suprising that they are able to convince most people. It's like the old adage, "Don't make enemies with people who buy ink by the barrel," taken to the next level. Lawyers ru(i)n almost everything in America.

Area12 11y ago

I accidentally gave you an upvote (I'm a noob at this UI) and I can't figure out how to take it back. Please read the thing you are replying to before replying next time.