HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ hindsightbias

At the time, this was universally reported by the media and accepted by the populace as an egregious abuse of the legal system. Jay Leno and the like minted non-stop jokes about it. Today, if you ask someone from that era about it, they have not seen the pictures and will ramble on about the need for tort reform.

Am so glad we have twitter and FB today to ground the populace in a more fashionable reality.

⬐ thatguy0900

"Am so glad we have twitter and FB today to ground the populace in a more fashionable reality."

I can't tell if this is sarcasm

⬐ ukoki

You're Wrong About has a great episode on this https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-mcdonalds-hot-coff...

The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E&feature=youtu.be

Yep, its really sad how people think of the hot coffee lawsuit.

For a quick lightish hearted overview in video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E

I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s

Some notes:

- Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong.

- The number of frivolous lawsuits in the US is actually pretty low.

- The lady burned by the McDonalds coffee was really hurt, and was only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee, who refused to serve it less hot.

⬐ rayiner

The problem with tort reform is not the idea of reducing frivolous litigation, but the fact that most of it isn't targeted at frivolous litigation. The most widely adopted tort-reform measures have been things like damages caps. E.g. the $75-million damages cap that would have applied in the BP oil spill had BP not waived it.[1] But cases where a jury awards a large amount of damages (or high punitive damages) are the least likely to be frivolous.

[1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-federal-law-may-lim...

⬐ ascagnel_

HBO produced a documentary [0] on that case a few years ago. I would recommend not watching it, only because they show the hospital photos of Stella Liebeck (the plaintiff in the case), and they are absolutely horrible.

[0] http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html

⬐ mpweiher

> only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee

And many of these were sequential, so McDonalds had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot, and they just refused to do anything about it.

⬐ steveeq1

> The lady burned by the McDonalds coffee was really hurt, and was only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee, who refused to serve it less hot.

What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing.

> Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong.

While I do not know who created the youtube video you posted, the "Hot Coffee" documentary that is frequently mentioned about the liebeck case is actually created by a special interest group, "Association of Trial Lawyers of America". If you think this movie doesn't have an agenda as well, I have a bridge to sell you. A video that does a better job of clearing up the misconceptions of the case is here: http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ .

> The number of frivolous lawsuits in the US is actually pretty low.

I have a hard time believing this. Frivilous lawsuits are easy to do in america and my friends (annoyingly) do them all the time. In fact, they brag about the ease of doing it. My personal estimate is around 70% of "I was injured" lawsuits from my friends were just made up to cash out.

Finally, "hot coffee" lawsuits happen all the time in america at temperatues as hot or hotter than what was given in liebeck case. And the cases almost always get thrown out by judges and juries because they are regarded as "frivilous". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

The liebeck case was the exception, not the rule.

⬐ mintplant

> What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee.

1. There aren't 171 BILLION customers on the planet.

2. So I can run around throwing boiling water over 10 out of the 300 MILLION people in the US, and it's totally cool because it statistically didn't happen? Good to know!

⬐ cattleprodigy

http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/ also has an agenda. It's paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (a business lobby group) which is criticized in Hot Coffee.

Your appeal to this website is just as bad really.

⬐ cholantesh

>171 BILLION

Uh...there are <8 billion people on the planet; where did that number come from?

⬐ will_brown

>What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing.

That is the problematic thinking right there. You are sacrificing 700 people to be burned so badly by coffee they require skin grafting based on it being statistically insignificant.

While no doubt many cases settled, many didn't and in those cases McDonalds was ordered to turn the temp down so spilled coffee would at least not result in scalding that require skin grafting. It is not small thing or statistically insignificant that McDonalds ignored many court orders, but why did they ignore the court order? Because the same cost benefit analysis you presented, they'd happily continue their practicies of selling 171B coffees and paying out 700 claims, than change the coffee temp and potentially lose any coffee market share.

As I mention above this well known case is unique because it awarded punitive damages, equaling 1 day of coffee sales, solely because the company repeatedly ignored court orders (i.e. Told the court to go fuck itself), further what is never mentioned consistent with the anti-litigation PR is that the judgement was appealed and ultimately lowered.

⬐ will_brown

I have some insight into the McDonalds coffee case...

1. The coffee spilled on the lady's lap in her car, buring her right through her jeans, the burns were so bad she required skin grafting throughout her upper thighs. It's also worth noting the coffee spilled because the McDonald's employee did not fasten the coffee lid;

2. As you mention during litigation it was discovered multiple people had been badly burned by the coffee from this McDonald's and others, and in prior cases the courts ordered McDonald's to turn the temp down based on expert testimony;

3. mcDonalds refused to comply with prior court orders, because a cost benefit analysis, you see truckers love their coffee boiling hot bc it stays hot longer, and it made financial sense to keep there main market happy and pay these lawsuits out rather than truckers potentially go elsewhere for coffee;

4. To punish McDonald's for ignoring prior court orders they awarded the woman punitive damages (while not rare is out of the norm), and she was awarded (I think) $3M in punitive damages which equals 1 day of McDonald's coffee sales;

5. Lesser known is McDonald's appealed the judgement and it was reduced, they and all other big companies took the original award and created the anti-litigation PR campaign we all know today, lady spills hot coffee and court awards millions

⬐ lr4444lr

(3) has to make you wonder how many employee accidents must have occurred handling liquid at temps this hot in a high-speed food service environment.

⬐ will_brown

It's a good question, But the employees would have no right to sue McDonald's for any damages in civil court (negligence for example), and they would be limited to workers compensation claims/benefits.

⬐ dragonwriter

Employees do not have no rights to sue for workplace injuries; intentional or reckless acts, and perhaps gross negligence, may be actionable even on situations where mere simple negligence would be subsumed into workers comp coverage.

⬐ will_brown

I didn't say employees had no rights, I said these specific employees would have no rights to sue McDonalds, that is a major distinction.

The legal arguments are simple, presumably if there are employees who burned themselves, they would have: a.) likely set the coffee temp themselves (above the recommended temp); b.) at least been aware of the temp and risk; and c.) presumably have some responsibility for spilling the coffee on themselves. These facts would remove intentional/reckless/gross negligence on the part of McDonalds.

And I already know the counter arguments; However, if I'm actually wrong feel free to show me an a single case of a McDonalds employee suing McDonald's in civil court outside of workers compensation laws as the result of scalding coffee.