[blisterpeanuts]

What a strange article to feature on Hacker News, front page two days running. Written by a kid just out of college, with little or no life experience, no legal expertise, and quoting biased sources like a liability lawyer to make his rather whimsical case about "eroding the 7th Amendment".

It sparked a tiresomely predictable debate about hot coffee, as happens every time this case comes up; there are always a couple thousand reader comments ranging from "She was stupid" to "McD's coffee is too hot, she deserved more money". I've read a lot of them and it does get repetitive.

As I see it, the Liebeck incident was unfortunate and tragic but does not represent a trend. This hapless woman appears to have been manipulated by an angry family into hiring a lawyer and blowing this up into a big case that took on a life of its own and caused her to be reviled by advocates of tort reform as a classic example of the legal system run amok. Others hailed her as a hero for the little people sticking it to the big bad corporation.

Yet, considering that McDonald's sells 10 million or so cups of coffee a day, 70 reports of coffee scalding a year seems like edge cases. Could it not be simply that there are 70 careless people a year? Much easier to believe than that somehow the coffee is leaping out of its cup and scalding innocent customers about 6 times a month, and they each should get $2.4 million from Mickey D's which after all is a giant corporation so "they can afford it".

Now every damn cup of coffee I buy comes with a little warning "Caution! The drink you are about to enjoy is very hot!" Well, hell yes it better be hot. I asked for hot coffee, and the hotter the better.

Once, in a coffee shop in Harvard Square, Cambridge Mass., a stupid young waitress managed to dump a decanter of very hot coffee onto my lap off the tray she was carrying. I got burned on the thigh very close to my genitals, it hurt, it blistered. I got over it. They didn't charge me for the coffee. Life went on. That's a case where it truly was "their fault". But I didn't sue them or anything.

I think in my case they could have apologized a bit more profusely, but then again, they don't apologize anymore because they figure that's an admission of guilt that you'll use against them in court. That's why Pennsylvania recently passed an apology law for doctors. Yes, they have a law now saying it's OK for docs to apologize without fear of lawsuit. The tort lawyers opposed the law. What a twisted world we live in!

[PhasmaFelis]

> I got burned on the thigh very close to my genitals, it hurt, it blistered. I got over it. They didn't charge me for the coffee. Life went on.

I'm glad to hear that you made a full recovery from your minor-but-painful burn. I doubt you would be so cheery about it if the clumsy waitress had maimed you and left you on the hook for $10,000 in medical bills.

This is why the Liebeck case always causes such controversy: there's a substantial group of people who are absolutely determined to argue with a made-up strawman instead of the actual facts. I genuinely don't understand why.

[blisterpeanuts]

"Made-up straw man"? Rather harsh, not to mention totally missing the point.

There's a bit of a difference between spilling it on oneself and being spilled on by someone else. That's not a straw man argument at all. It's a tangential anecdote. Yes, indeed, had she caused me $10,000 in medical harm, it's possible and likely I would have sought compensation from her employer. But had I spilled the decanter on myself, which is the point of the Liebeck case, that would be a different thing entirely.

[PhasmaFelis]

And now we're back to the central misrepresentation, which we've already gone 'round several times in this thread, so pardon me if I quote myself.

Your argument is that everyone knows hot coffee can scald you and it's their own fault if they don't take precautions. If I sell you shampoo with unlisted hydrochloric acid in it, and some gets in your eyes and you're permanently blinded, should I be held blameless because "everyone knows that getting soap in your eyes hurts?"

Selling a product that is known to be mildly dangerous, in a state that is cripplingly dangerous and lacking appropriate warnings, is a clear public health issue and needs to be punished.

[blisterpeanuts]

We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

What about the alcohol manufacturers, who knowingly sell you an addictive substance that impairs your driving, damages your brain, causes some people to use extreme violence, and causes fetal alcohol syndrome in babies. My gosh, what could be worse.

The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo? Shampoos are basic, and acid would neutralize the base and result in something like colored water.

Anyway, my argument is not exactly what you stated. Rather, I was pointing out that there is a difference between direct responsibility and responsibility once removed. When you start blaming those who are indirectly responsible for an accident of whatever sort, you are opening up the field to a much vaster field of targets for rapacious lawyers. There has to be a limit, realistically speaking, or society would grind to a halt.

Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous? A clear public health issue? Ridiculous, even if you're just being semi-humorous at this point.

[PhasmaFelis]

> We're all just a slip of the steering wheel away from instant death on the roads. This is just an unfortunate fact of life. Do the car manufacturers "need to be punished" every time someone screws up?

If I'm not paying attention while driving and get wrapped around a telephone pole, that's my fault. If my car bursts into flames on a minor fender-bender because the gas tank wasn't placed properly, that's the manufacturer's fault--and I believe there's plenty of legal precedent to support that.

Again, it's about expected/accepted danger vs. unreasonable danger. Not everything can be made marshmallow-safe, but we do expect a reasonable effort to keep hazards within expected bounds.

> The shampoo example is ridiculous. Why would someone put HCL in a shampoo?

I dunno! Why would someone serve a beverage meant for human consumption at flesh-melting temperatures? That's pretty ridiculous!

> Now as for coffee: cripplingly dangerous?

Stella Liebeck was literally crippled by it. I'm not sure what else you want.