1. A woman willingly purchased hot coffee from McDonald's.
2. She spilled it on herself.
3. She sued McDonald's because of her injuries.
Those three things are true no matter which circle you ask.
A lot of people I talk to, even when given all of the facts of the case still consider it a frivolous lawsuit because they place almost all of the blame on the woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
Possibly they would have drawn a different conclusion if given all the facts to being with. It's hard for many to admit they were wrong.
To bring it back on topic: when web users are told "we care about your privacy", they should be able to take it at face value. When the company then weasels out of the headline promise on technicalities (we don't share cookies — we share JSON, haha!), then it is violating that promise.
It reminds me of that recent case of 90%+ passengers "putting the oxygen masks wrong" because they are "idiots" - an opinion that seemed to be shared by a lot of people even here on HN, but even more so on Twitter.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/103226206/alm...
To me, someone whose never seen an airplane oxygen mask up-close, it's pretty clear that the design of the masks would make people think that this is how you use it, and not over your nose. When you're going down with your plane, fear for your life ending, and have like 30 seconds to act, it's like not you have time to think about the "proper usage of an oxygen mask" - you use it instinctually, based on the design of the thing.
Therefore, those people were not "idiots". Idiots were the people designing the masks in a way that doesn't make sense for humans in an extremely high-pressure situation with little time to react.
Also, as usual, when the vast majority of people do something "wrong", that's the first and only red flag you need to know that the issue is a system design flaw, not a user error one. Same with Apple's "you're holding it wrong" antenna issue, etc.
But I agree with you about high-pressure situations and not ascribing idiocy.
Which such small masks, people probably believe they are doing something wrong when they are not tight against the skin (like a gas mask or scuba mask) and then puts them over the mouth where they fit tightly.
The mask people probably have experience with are scuba mask or gas masks and they both need to fit tightly.
How is unusually hot temperature significantly different from poison in this situation?
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
I'd like to note:
> Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
> Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain.
> The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
"in America someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot"
"in America it says on the box to not microwave cats because someone once did"
"in America you get a gun when you open a bank account"
Etc..
Oh well I'm sure similar incorrect stories about Europe float around America.
Sample set of 1, but it was odd for someone not from America, and indeed it was his first time in America, to be as misinformed about things. Not knowing things is fine, but knowing wrong facts, and refusing corrections, was just weird.
It was an eye opener for what I "know" about Europe.
Most Americans have guns, support open carry, etc. I was an unfathomable oddity for not owning a firearm.
Most Americans support the current president (whoever that may be at the time), or at least hope he succeeds with his plans.
We only eat fast food, or at the least primarily as a people, prefer "American Food".
And a lot of things that can be boiled down to "America is horribly unsafe, if you go for a walk alone, you WILL get mugged or otherwise hurt"
The Hot Coffee thing was part of a larger thread about the American legal system being a game people play.
There are truths in some of these things, of course, but the scale of them was way off in his head.
This definitely happens with some narratives. For instance, some news outlets report that some parts of Europe are no-go zones for non Muslims, where Sharia reigns.
Honestly, I don't think about Europe that much. America is huge (both geographically and population wise) and there's so much stuff going on nationally that there isn't enough bandwidth for most Euro stuff.
"Brexit seems like a mess" and "Boy the G7 didn't seem to go well" are the most recent thoughts I've had on Europe.
She balanced the cup not in a cupholder, but between her knees. Even normally hot coffee is going to be bad news if it spills like that - the only difference the increased temp made was that the burns were more severe. But the coffee would not have spilled at all if she was not negligent in handling it (i.e. she should have given it to a passenger to hold or put in a cupholder).
If the coffee had been incorrectly sealed and it spilled out during normal operation of the cup (for example, drinking it) then I'd blame McD. But I don't see why it's reasonable to blame McD just because the coffee is 10 or 20 degrees above normal temp.
She went into shock and had to be rushed to the ER. 1/6th of her body was burned. The coffee was 30 degrees hotter, putting it closer to boiling than to the average temperature other machines served at. I dipped my hand in a fresh cup of coffee at home just now for reference. I could hold it fine for 3-5 seconds (which should get me close to a third degree burn with McD).
They also had over 700 reports of previous burns -- doesn't that sound like a systemic problem? The jurors, after seeing images of her injuries and reports of previous injuries, increased the punitive damages. I think the amounts are telling:
Plaintiff: ~20k (medical/legal fees)
McD: 800
Jurors: 2.7m
Judge: ~650k
Final settlement: < 500k
It is also worth noting that the court in this case did not assign full responsibility to McDonald's; your point was certainly considered in this case.
The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has to be clear cut.
How McDonalds no longer engages in "corporate negligence": they put pronounced warnings on the cup that it's a dangerously hot substance. That's it. They did not lower the temperature (as is frequently claimed, nor is the temperature at all outside of normal industry standards, yet this is being repeatedly stated throughout this thread -- coffee, brewing with boiling water, is hot). You can get a searingly hot cup of coffee from most quick-serve restaurants today depending upon how freshly it was brewed. This is a case where the solution is more warnings on things.
This case was, however, an example of bad brand management, and perhaps throwing good money after bad for something they could have privately settled early on.
This is certainly not a hill I want to die on, and generally arguing against the prevalent opinion (which is overwhelming the one that you and the GP have expressed, albeit almost always positioning it like it's contrarian) is self-defeating, however this whole case is fascinating in how public perception shifts.
According to the facts presented at the trial, it is, at least for the fast food industry. All other fast food chains were found to serve coffee at about 140 F.
aka compression machine. optimized to trigger brains' reward circuitry for accomplishment by 'tidying up' unmanageable landscapes of disjointed data into easily stored and recalled bimodal silhouettes of same.
Typical coffee serving temperature is 155-175F. I'm considered unusual among my friends for being able to sip 170-180F coffee. 190F is just way too hot.
Again, if you buy a coffee at McDonalds today, or at Starbucks, or virtually anywhere else, you'll get a coffee that can be as hot or hotter. It's a hot beverage.
Now, yes. Not 25 years ago.
FWIW I think the temperature of coffee is way too hot at most places. It drives me crazy. If I can't drink it immediately after them handing it to me? Too hot!
But recently brewed coffee is dangerous anyway, it's quite stupid to hold it with one's legs. Still, I don't know about the details, and even the defamation she suffered might be enough for the punishment.
Of course if they do brew that, they won’t give it to you before either adding a bit of cool water (most places prefer to brew strong and then dilute) or letting it cool down (if they just insist on a strong-taste brand).
Coffee nuts are a fan of really high temperature in my experience. They just know that you can’t taste the difference if your first sip burns off your taste buds.
IIRC at the time the McDonald's stated rationale was that by serving at that temperature it would be at a good drinking temperature when people arrived at their offices. These days that seems ludicrous to me.
Citation needed. Anecdotally, every person I ever talked to about that case either had a profound eye roll or a shrug about how people will sue over anything.
If I bought a hammer and smashed my finger with it, should I sue Home Depot for selling me a hammer that was too hard and not warning me about it? That’s pretty much the basis of the McDonald’s case: they sold a hot beverage, some lady sticks it between her legs and it spills. A reasonable person could have foreseen that a hot beverage, stored in an insecure manner, could pose a spilling hazard and that hot liquids have the potential to scald. A woman in her 70s has been around enough hot liquids in her life that she should have known the risk of scalding. None of that is McDonald’s fault. It was just easy to manipulate the jury into the award by using emotion and painting McDonalds as some uncaring villain. That case was frivolous— but since it made it to the jury, the old lady won and now we all get to pay more when we buy coffee from restaurants to cover the higher insurance costs restaurants must now pass on to the customer.
In popular circles, the story is framed in a way that does make the lawsuit look frivolous. But this is also a case that has made it into the legal textbooks as an example of corporate negligence that's clear-cut enough to use for demonstrating the concept in introductory textbooks.
Of course, in the legal textbooks, the version of the story that's told includes a lot of details that, as you point out, get excluded from the popular version.