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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Well, when I buy coffee or tea, I usually can feel how hot it is by touching the cup. My local coffee shop serves it super hot, so I take the lid off and blow on it until it cools down. It simply would not occur to me to sue them if I injured myself with their hot coffee. I prefer it hot in any case, since you can cool down super hot coffee pretty easily. As I said, I’m not commenting on the legal case. The woman could have very well had a viable case. I’m commenting on the culture.
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?
Good point. Though I think there’s still room to distinguish an uncomfortably hot coffee spill from a third degree burn causing one, and it’s not immediately obvious to a casual consumer when you cross that threshold.
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:
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.