[idlerig]

This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. It wasn't some "Karen" who hit a bump while driving. It was an elderly woman (in her 70s, IIRC), sitting in the passenger seat.

McDonalds already had complaints (and some lawsuits) over the (significantly higher than industry standard) temperature of their coffee, so this wasn't exactly out of the blue.

She ended up with 3rd degree burns on her legs and crotch. She asked only for her medical bills to be paid. McDonald's refused, so she eventually took them to court. Even then, she only asked for medical bills (and now legal expenses).

The jury decided that McDonalds was not only liable for those costs, but had treated the woman so poorly that they should pay punitive damages. The massive amount you heard about in the news was based on the amount of money McDonalds makes selling coffee in one day.

But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20877309 and marked it off-topic.

[mumblemumble]

The most interesting thing to me about that McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit is how different the narrative is in popular circles vs. in legal circles. It's a little bit like in Rashomon.

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.

[frogpelt]

The reason the McDonald's lawsuit is framed that way in popular circles is because it is easily fits the mold for a frivolous lawsuit.

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.

[kube-system]

I have a feeling that's more to do with some people's reluctance to admit they were wrong about their initial conclusion, and so they cherry pick the facts to support their initial conclusion.

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.

[pornel]

It's mostly harmless to spill regular drinkable-temperature coffee on yourself, so she took appropriate level of precaution (i.e. very little) for that reasonable assumption. She shouldn't be to blame even if she showered in the coffee.

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.

[mtgx]

Yes, once again, when an issue is systemic (in this case, all coffees by McDonalds are super-hot), the user is not to blame but the vendor/system designer.

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.

[daeken]

Why the hell does that article not include a photo or diagram of a mask properly worn? Even despite knowing that it goes over your mouth and nose, the design of the mask makes it difficult to understand how one would actually do that. Seems like a huge, huge omission.

[onemoresoop]

It's because they're doing it wrong as well

[cafard]

It seems to me that the safety cards in the seat pockets show the the masks correctly worn, and the cabin crew demonstrate the proper fit when going through the routine before takeoff.

But I agree with you about high-pressure situations and not ascribing idiocy.

[rightbyte]

Hmm ... I have never though about the masks and just assumed they would cover the nose "automatically" and I would maybe do the same thing.

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.

[vasilipupkin]

Well, when you purchase coffee at McDonald’s and you see that it’s super hot, you can return it or cool it down by blowing on it before drinking it. Not commenting on the legal case, but it seems nuts to blame someone else for spilling hot coffee on yourself, no matter how you slice it.

[dx87]

"Hot" is meaningless in this context. People take "hot" showers and it turns their skin red, it doesn't cause serious burns that require surgery. You can absolutely blame someone else if the coffee you spilled on yourself was served at dangerous temperatures. Also, you can't "see" that it is dangerously hot before it's too late. A lot of things have steam coming off of them and don't require hospitilization if you spill it on yourself.

[lovecg]

As a thought experiment, let’s replace “really hot” with “poison”. Do you think it’s reasonable to blame the customer for inadvertently drinking poisonous coffee from a chain when all other chains sell poison-free coffee? What if it comes with instructions like “just wait 20 minutes and the poison will evaporate”—does this sufficiently clear the company in your view?

How is unusually hot temperature significantly different from poison in this situation?

[llampx]

The coffee is covered with a lid.

[rubyn00bie]

I'd suggest just reading about it instead of spewing ignorant nonsense, this is the whole problem with this exact example, it takes like two minutes to read but no one ever does:

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.

[apexalpha]

I've heard this story numerous times as "haha in America X". Many of these stories go around the Netherlands...

"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.

[banana_giraffe]

I had a coworker from the Netherlands over recently. I think by the end of the trip he thought I was making stuff up trying to correct this misconceptions. I do know he never believed me about the hot coffee lawsuit.

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.

[kipchak]

Out of curiosity do you have any particular examples other than the coffee lawsuit?

[banana_giraffe]

The things I remember:

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.

[levi_n]

Another American here:

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.

[moate]

American Here, sample size of 1:

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.

[JustARandomGuy]

Mark me down as a person who considers it a frivolous lawsuit. And yes I've read the background.

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.

[alexeldeib]

They discuss the car not having any flat surface to place the cup. Putting a cup between your legs in that situation is pretty common, if not foolproof.

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

[kube-system]

Spills are a normal and expected occurrence in the course of life. I've spilled coffee on myself before, but I've never needed 8 days in the hospital as a result.

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.

[endorphone]

Are you a lawyer? Because this take is quite remarkable, especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent, coupled with a lot of supporting but not entirely factual claims to justify that position. I feel like the same people who were jeering at the victim just marched over to sainting her and demonizing McDonalds.

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.

[aggie]

I don't know what makes you so certain that general sentiment is anti-McDonald's in this case. I have only ever heard the story given as an example of the frivolous lawsuits brought by overly-litigious Americans. It makes a good example of that ("they sued over hot coffee?"). The alternate framing, that McDonald's made coffee too hot, doesn't make for a very noteworthy or pithy story, so I'm skeptical of your take on the public opinion.

[pdonis]

> nor is the temperature at all outside of normal industry standards

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.

[ChainOfFools]

> The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has to be clear cut

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.

[205guy]

This is actually a very interesting and seemingly accurate description of what powers so much of the internet.

[coolsunglasses]

The standard temperate you brew coffee at is 200F, less if at high altitude. McDonalds coffee is served at 180-190F and brewed at something higher than 200F and lower than boiling.

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.

[endorphone]

205F is the ideal brewing temperature, and is just a snip under boiling (212F). Serving temperature is entirely a function of waiting time from brewing, and is commonly between 165-185 everywhere. For take out shops it tends to be higher as there is the expectation that users have a delay before they drink it, and that many add cream or milk.

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.

[lovegoblin]

> the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent

Now, yes. Not 25 years ago.

[amatecha]

Sadly, from what I've observed over the years, "McDonalds hot coffee" is usually the most immediately-referenced example when the topic of "frivolous lawsuits" comes up. Usually in the context of someone joking they're going to file a lawsuit about some silly thing that would be totally ridiculous to pursue. "Someone spilled coffee on herself and then sued McDonalds when it burned her", as if that's somehow frivolous.

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!

[marcosdumay]

Normally coffee is not brewed on boiling water, and losses a lot of heat during the brewing process. So, McDonalds' coffee (and the ones on many more stores) is significantly hotter than normal coffee.

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.

[crdrost]

I don’t know how fast food companies brew it, but frequently coffee shops who do drips and care about the flavor more insist that the most important thing in drip coffee is a temperature that’s only around 10°F/5°C under boiling.

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.

[fencepost]

The grounds and equipment are not at similarly high temperatures, so the coffee going into the cup is significantly cooler than the water being poured.

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.

[briandear]

> especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent

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.

[throwaway_law]

Its actually even worse factually...its not just the coffee was hot and McD's had prior complaints, there are industry standards, which McDonald's knowingly and willfully violated.

It actually all relates to trucking/truckers who use their own special cups, but demand the coffee be scalding so it stays hot longer on the road. McDonald's catered to these truckers to grow their coffee business, they knew the risks and gave no warnings to customers. I think the employee was also negligent in securing the lid leading to the spill itself.

As you say the coffee was so hot it scalded this woman so badly through her jeans she needed skin grafts. And sure enough there was massive money spent to spin this in the media as "woman burned by coffee sues for millions, everything wrong with our litigious society." Where this should have read: giant corporation disregards safety standards to boost their bottom line to the detriment of its customers leading to boiling coffee that scalded a woman's privates requiring skin grafts, then in bad faith the insurer denies the woman's claim to pay her medical bills, drags her through court which they lose, then they drag her through the appeals process which she didn't want any part of either.

[fmajid]

And the money went to Shriners' Hospital, not the burn victim (I saw the photos, they are beyond horrific). What's more, McDonalds had been advised their coffee temperature was dangerous, but decided to ignore this for marketing reasons, because people like the look of steaming coffee.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Not even that... if you put the coffee that high, people would be less likely to ask for a refill as the coffee took longer to cool off.

[PJDK]

Curious how this one has changed on the internet.

From a UK perspective I'd always thought of it as a case of crazy pay-out. Why does this one women get several million dollars (although googling reveals this number went down a bit on appeal)? Especially if others had a similar experience. Either there should be a limit on the temperature of hot drinks, or there shouldn't.

The fact a warning is deemed adequate seems weird too, people will actively try and avoid spilling a stone cold cup of coffee on their lap!

It feels to me like the internet moved from shilling for big burger to shilling for big law firm.

[dccoolgai]

The payout is because _without it_ companies wouldn't change what they do. The punitive damages serve as an "example" for other corps to not do the same thing or risk losing that much money, too. If anything, I think punitive damages for corporate negligence would be _higher_. Maybe some of the payment could be directed to funds for victims instead of all going to one person, but that person (and their lawyers) also had to combat a multi-million dollar defense team.

[fencepost]

From memory I believe the case was settled for a presumably lower undisclosed amount rather than go through a long appeals process.

[duxup]

>But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

I'm not sure that was the case at the time... specifically there being "paid shills" on the internet.

Concern / outrage over the legal system seems to be a bit of the human condition, I'm not convinced there was a conspiracy required to have folks retell an inaccurate story about that incident.

Sometimes it feels like anything that is perceived to be corporate friendly is called a "shill" as if individuals (mistaken or not) couldn't organically have X opinion.

[nitwit005]

McDonnalds didn't hire any internet shills or anything like that. The media bought into their lawyers public claims about the case without bothering to investigate anything, and the TV talk show circuits picked it up.

Unfortunately, you often don't need to try particularly hard to get the media to repeat false claims.

[DamnYuppie]

Especially when you have one of the largest advertising budgets in the world!

[nitwit005]

Contacting reporters is basically free, and they're usually happy to get stories from corporations. I doubt they had to spend much of anything.

Besides, there's little point in spending more than you'd lose in a settlement on a PR campaign to avoid the settlement.

[zajio1am]

> This is exactly what happened in the McDonald's "hot coffee" lawsuit. ... But that's not the story that was spread by the shills...

Well, all of these changes (perhaps with the exception of industry standards) are IMHO irrelevant to responsibility of McDonald for the incident.

[briandear]

How did the coffee spill? Did she hold a cup of a beverage that is traditionally served very hot between her legs?

That lawsuit was frivolous. Coffee is hot. If you spill it, it might burn you.

As far as just asking for medical bills — that might have been true until her lawyers smelled a multi-million payday.

Lawyers like that are the reason we have warnings on hair dryers to not use while showering and warnings on coffee cups that warn of the hot beverage inside. Coffee is traditionally made using boiling or near boiling water — unless McDonalds super-heated the water, the temperature at which it was served was consistent with how coffee is normally served.

That it was an elderly lady makes no difference. That’s just emotional distraction and has no relevance. The McDonalds lawsuit ushered in the “nanny” era where people have to be warned against such hazards as “boating carries a risk of serious injury or drowning.” And product costs (including medical care) is dramatically more expensive than it should be because the trial lawyers had to all get paid. Punishment under statute is one thing, but unlimited punitive damages is absurd. We talk about CEOs getting paid to much — not even close to the payday trial lawyers get.

[eropple]

This is a bad and frankly cruel reading of a lawsuit that addresses systemic failures of a corporate entity that had been previously alerted to a design and practice failure of their operation. Similar lawsuits regarding coffee at 179 deg F, rather than 190 deg F, have been thrown out. Almost as if there was an actual problem with what McDonalds' was doing, you know?

That corporate entity had decided it was cheaper to not fix it than to fix it, until a human being who they contributed to significantly harming brought the problem before a jury. And she was found partially responsible for her own injuries, a fact which you elide (while speaking so authoritatively that I must assume you know this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't, yes?), while the jury also found that McDonalds' had been reckless in their operation--that most of the money awarded was a punitive penalty assessed because that corporate entity was cavalier in their treatment of actual, real-not-fictive people.

While we're at it, the punitive award granted was $480,000, not "multi-million"--though the jury asked for it, as two days of McDonalds' coffee revenue, and was reduced by the judge.

You've either been had, or you're trying to do the having. I shall not speculate on which.

[mitchty]

Its pretty obvious you've not read up on the facts of the case and have jumped to a few conclusions. Nobody contests that hot coffee causes mild burns, hot coffee that causes third degree burns in seconds is another matter entirely.

https://segarlaw.com/blog/myths-and-facts-of-the-mcdonalds-h...

Have a read and then come back here and lets hear you argue that the lawsuit wasn't warranted.