[ubernostrum]

There is a school of thought that punitive fines should be a proportion of company value/earnings rather than an absolute dollar figure to exact an equal amount of discomfort.

In the infamous McDonald's coffee lawsuit, this was actually the motivation behind the initial large damage award. The jury attempted to award punitive damages equal to two days' worth of McDonald's coffee revenue.

(obligatory note here for the many people who have heard false information about that case: the coffee spilled in a car, yes, but the car was motionless, in a parking space, and the person who spilled it was not the driver, and was found partially at fault for the spill; she suffered severe burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts, which is not generally what one expects from coffee; it was found McDonald's served its coffee significantly hotter than other chains, in a temperature range making burns more likely, and was aware of the fact that it could cause severe burns because this wasn't the first case, and in fact McDonald's was aware of hundreds of cases of burns resulting from its coffee; the initial damage award was significantly reduced by the judge; search for Liebeck v. McDonald's for more details)

[rtpg]

Yeah though even then it was connected to the coffee revenue, right?

I feel like this school of thought is also the one that ends up with things like "3 strikes and you're 25-to-life"

[ajmurmann]

Only because the fine is based on your income doesn't mean it has to be draconic. Quite the opposite. They can actually be less draconic than fixed amount fines. If you earn minimum wage a speeding ticket can be a complete disaster. If you are a tech worker you will barely notice the ticket.

[hx87]

25-to-life is indeed excessive, but if some people had 25 year lifespans and others had 2500 year lifespans, "3 strikes and you're 10-25% of your lifespan" is actually quite reasonable.

[shoo]

I think I see what you're getting at: punishments or penalties for offences that are arguably disproportionate to the crime.

On the other hand I think there is a gulf of difference between "3 strikes" laws and punitive damages being awarded against a company for an arguably frivolous lawsuit.

The former will disproportionally target people who are relatively disadvantaged, e.g. people living in poverty or drug addicts, and ruin their lives.

The latter (in this case) targeted a multinational corporation, with the damages being around 0.01% of its annual profit or less. McDonald's can survive that. Even if a person or two in the chain of command get fired, there's a gulf of difference between losing your job and getting locked up for 25 years.

[lagadu]

> an arguably frivolous lawsuit.

I know you're not talking specifically about mcd coffee suit, but there's nothing arguable about that one; because there's still some measure of belief that it was frivolous here's a quote taken from the wikipedia article[0]:

> Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

[thinkloop]

> punishments or penalties for offences that are arguably disproportionate to the crime

This is not incompatible, the school of thought still wants to achieve that.

"this crime is minor and deserves a minor punishment of level 2 suffering, what's a good way to inflict level 2 suffering on this individual"

[TruthAndDare]

> which is not generally what one expects from coffee

I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling.

> in a temperature range making burns more likely

Is there a particular range for burns? Isn't it simply that the hotter it is, the more burns you get?

[wpietri]

That sounds linear to me, which is not correct. Injury level is exponential with temperature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

Injury time is logarithmic:

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa...

[TruthAndDare]

> That sounds linear to me

What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.

[wpietri]

The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about.

I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.

[TruthAndDare]

> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely".

Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.

[wpietri]

Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those.

But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.