How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment

Re:How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment by akira2501 on Sunday May 11, 2014 @03:20PM (#7729589)

What warning difference? It's hard to find any definitive answers, but the case happened in 1992. Based upon my own recollections, this was the time where every fast-food chain started putting warnings on everything. McDonald's even added warnings to their hot apple pies and other "served hot" foods.

Would Liebeck have acted differently? That's not the objective of the jury in this case, especially considering that McDonald's conceded that their warnings were likely inadequate. To the extent that it is relevant, the jury did find Stella Liebeck 20% at fault for the accident and so the damage award was adjusted accordingly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment by SilasX on Sunday May 11, 2014 @04:27PM (#7729856)

I'm just asking the natural follow-up question to the claim that McDonald's is partially at fault for insufficient warning.

If you believe that Liebeck would have done the same thing with or without the improvement to the warning, you can't really blame the substandard warning.

[ Parent | on HN ]