Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by deckeraa 1455 days ago
In that case Kuerig's legal argument would be straightforward:

- The injury due to the coffee burn was due entirely to the elevated temperature.

- The machine would not have served at the scalding temperature had McDonald's not made the modification.

- The modification was specifically made to raise the temperature to a level that turned out to be unsafe.

The question of whether a modification was made would almost certainly come out in court because a McDonald's employee would be unlikely to perjure themselves over it.

Therefore, all the liability would be on McDonald's.

Though I do see your point about legal costs being incurred even if the case of Kuering being completely innocent. It seems that having a culture instilled with a nebulous concept of "liability" encourages people to limit other's ability to take their own risks.

(Edit: formatting)

1 comments

I’m not even sure the liability should be on McDonalds. In stupid America, everyone tries to blame someone. Sometimes it’s just you spilled your own coffee on you. If it was a McDonald’s employee that spilled it on you, different story.

There doesn’t need to be “walk don’t run” signs everywhere, and liability waivers for every activity.