The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Hot Coffee, a Thread About McDonalds and Its Hot Coffee
Posts
One of us is being ridiculous here, but I'll give you a hint: it's not the person using medical definitions when talking about medical terms.
Without looking, I'm pretty sure that this exact section is the one Yar quoted, but it is not the section quoted in Wikipedia.
The judge in the Bogle case, that is, a medical lay-person, in the continuation of his written verdict (as, in, after he has entered the above scientific citation into record), switches to 'deep thickness'. The actual, scientific citation in the verdict, shown again above, uses the (correct?) full-thickness terminology, the rest of the verdict uses the improper deep thickness terminology. To be clear to the point of pain; The actual scientists performing the actual experiments, writing the actual paper, uses the appropriate medical terminology. The judge in the case does not.
I'd comment further, but honestly, the above contains the pertinent information and anything else would just be self-satisfying. For some impertinence and self-satisfcation, here's a picture of a unicorn (not neccesarily safe for work).
So... look. The hot coffee case. All of the arguments you guys are making are valid arguments as to why this case wasn't exactly the ultimate example of a truly frivolous lawsuit. If I sued McDonald's because my cat died a day after I drank some of their coffee, then maybe we'd have a example of a truly frivolous lawsuit. But someone was severely injured from a cup of coffee that McD's knew could cause such injuries, and experts say their coffee is too hot for its purpose, and that they decided not to do anything about it because they'd sell more coffee this way? Well, okay, Stella's got a right to at least be heard.
Hot coffee burn cases, though, are almost always dismissed before ever going to trial. Nearly all of the court rulings we've been citing here are not actually decisions on liability, but rather decisions on dismissing such cases before even getting them to trial. The Liebeck case went to trial because, unlike many others, the lawyer made sure that he had enough points addressed ahead of time, so that the judge couldn't say that the case was blatantly lacking major components of what goes into liability, defect, and negligence cases. The judge couldn't say, "look, this doesn't even approximate the basic concept of liability here!" He couldn't, for all the reasons you guys are giving.
The thing is, though, I believe the layman's practical meaning when he says "frivolous lawsuit" is not just the cat dying. It's more relevantly about the symbolic battle line between personal responsibility and personal claims. It's about the results, not whether it was technically frivolous. In other words, it isn't the fact that the case went to trial that was so startling to the public, but rather that the case was won. And in that light, the court of public opinion wasn't wrong - this case was quite a fluke and flaunted all precedent.
And long those lines, the original damage assessment by the jury is justifiably startling, too, regardless of whether the judge reduced it and eventually a settlement was reached. The jury decided what it did, and that shocked people.
Within the complexities of the differences there, though, lies the unfortunate reality that opinions can be swayed, and that juries are quite capable of deciding on emotion and ignorance, even when facts and laws and precedents and reason don't support their decision.
And after doing this same discussion here something like 6 times now, at least three of which were pretty huge, drawn-out threads, I'm more thoroughly convinced than ever that the decision, and the arguments of those who support it, have little-to-no basis in fact, reason, law, or precedent.
It's true that the typical wisdom on the case often reports that she was opening the cup while driving, and that she received only a scalding, and that she walked away with millions. These are details and matters of degree that aren't fair to reality, but they don't change much in the eyes of the law, either. Regardless, I've found the opposing reaction to this to be even more misleading, inaccurate, and unreasonable, which is why I take such interest in it.
Like Al Gore inventing the Internet... the original myth wasn't exactly accurate or fair. What fascinates me is the responding myth that spread to defeat it - I found its many variations often to be more inaccurate and misleading than the original. Every time I hear "what he really said was..." the quote that follows is likely even more inaccurate and misqouted than the simple "I invented the Internet." And every time I hear an explanation of his accomplishments that justify it, they are significantly more outlandish and exaggerated than the relatively harmless share of due credit that Al himself was originally trying to take.
So Liebeck wasn't driving, and got worse burns than people think, and probably never got millions for it. Those aren't even really significant discrepanices in the eyes of the law, they are just exaggerations of degree. What I find to far more misleading are the reports that this was "actually textbook liability" and that McD's "superheated" their coffee, to "mask it's horrible flavor," that it was "way hotter than anyone else serves coffee" and that "a document showed that McD's knew their coffee was too hot and a public safety hazard, but decided it was cheaper to settle lawsuits than to fix their defective coffee equipment." These are quite material, quite misleading, and quite false, and they make the legend of the scalded driver millionaire look like true wisdom in comparison.
And now that I've learned that the iconic Ford Pinto fire hazard and its infamous cost-benefit analysis are more in the realm of myth and apocrypha than even McD's superheated coffee, I'm forming a more wholistic view of these kinds of things. I still think that tort and liability lawsuits are a powerful and largely successful force for progress. But I also think that sometimes we expect to much of it, and make too much of a grand stage for villians and victims, and are unwittingly teaching corporations that bullshit and politics are more important than trying to make reasonable and proper decisions. I thought they could come up with that on their own.
Essentially, with the higher temperature she's an extreme case with full thickness burns and with a lower temperature she'd still be an extreme case with full thickness burns.
And the 1 in 24 million figure is based on the number of coffee's served versus the number of reported burn incidents. If you have a coffee a day (several really, but I can't be arsed to math it out properly) you're more likely to be struck by lightning.
Even if you didn't curse Zeus today.
Not exactly, no. The burn would have most likely happened within the first ~10 seconds or so. The coffee simply would not have enough thermal inertia (heat capacity) to maintain a constant temperature (or even a moderately high temperature) while burning her skin. You have to remember that not only is the energy contained in the coffee being sapped by the skin, but also the coffee is cooling via natural convection (maybe even forced.. since she was breathing heavily/screaming/blowing on her lap).
There are still two sides to your point, though. I believe that a large part of what conerns people involves their instinctive understanding of greed and incentives. If it is someone like McD's, then the award, assuming it's punitive, has to be enough to make them care; yes. But that doesn't explain away all the concerns someone might have over the implications. A jury might give you millions for spilling coffee on yourself? Regardless of the theoretical basis of punitive damages, the fact alone concerns people that our tort system is creating even more incentives for skilled, high-priced attorneys to exploit it. The recipient is absolutely relevant to the common concern, even if the defendant was the real target of the theoretical $millions.
So I still feel that public opinion on this wasn't too far off. There ought to be a stern rebuke from the public on cases like the Pinto and hot coffee. As long as they are few and far between, then perhaps it's just an acceptable rate of error in an imperfect system. But we should be concerned if our tort system is shifting it's focus away from advocating public safety and ethical behavior, and towards being an insurance safety net forced onto corporations for the benefit of those who can elicit the most sympathy and emotion.
Or, rather, towards a system that punishes poor political theatrics instead of punishing poor decisions. Jury interviews seemed to indicate that they felt McDonald's case was strong, but that during the trial, representatives of McD's did not display an acceptable level of sympathy and horror at Liebeck's tragedy, and therefore needed to be punshed for their indifference. Of course, as a practical matter, one needs to manage perception and theatrics, and to that end McD's failed miserably in this case. But I am encouraged when society demonstrates the ability to look past such things, and disheartened when we hyper-focus on them. Especially when it seems we knowingly abandon right and reason for it.
Every time we chastise a politican or a corporate representative more for their attitude or tongue-slips than we do for their actions and decisions, I think we encourage them to focus more on giving us placating platitudes and less on actually doing right by society.
No, they did not. Clearly you do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of punitive damages. The only reason that she got the money is that there is no other person or entity that the state can give the money to without a conflict of interest arising. It cannot keep it for itself lest deciding in favor of the plaintiff becomes the method of funding the courts. It cannot give it to charity lets the courts become a way for funding projects that feed the public good.
The money was taken from McDonalds, but must go somewhere, you cannot just take the money and not have it go anywhere. That is why the money goes to the plaintiff. It is not given, it is taken from the defendant.
NO! Good god man! Do you know nothing of common law and tort law. Tort law is not about advocating public safety and ethical behavior. That is only what punitive damages are for. Tort law is about correcting damages as a result of a breach of duty by the damaging party. It is explicitly about correcting the damage that people do to others.
It exactly is and has always been "an insurance safety net" for who can elicit the most sympathy and emotion and prove that the other party had a duty to perform but failed to do so or that the other party deliberately acted in a way that caused damage! It has always been this way because it has been understood that it is impossible to legislate the entirety of possible damages and further impossible to legislate the remedy for said damages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqcbgSpHMFs
Oh good grief, Yar. This is exactly the kind of ignorance and emotion-based hyperbole that you accuse the Liebeck jury of using.
As Goumindong pointed out, a civil lawsuit is not like a criminal trial. It is not about Administering Justice. It is, to simplify, a plaintiff saying that the defendant has done something improper for which they should compensate the plaintiff. In the US and in most systems, compensation means money damages. (We don't execute the wrongdoer's family members or force them to become a debt-slave to the plaintiff.)
The question a trial answers, really, is a) was there a wrong? and b) if so, who should bear the cost of that wrong?
Punitive damages are not about "administering justice". They are damages over and above what it takes to compensate for the wrongdoing, intended to punish the wrongdoer (technically 'tortfeasor') for really outrageous and horrible behavior.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Unfortunately that doesn't work.
The part about proving the other party had a duty but failed, that's correct, the rest of what you said, no. Judges have specifically ruled that the Legislative Branch did not intend the Judicial to create a corporate-sponsored accident insurance system via tort. But yeah, correcting damages, hopefully as both justice and as an incentive to not cause damages. When the damages are too small to be an incentive, pile on punitive. However, as evidences by interviews with jury members and several posts in this thread, many perceived the actual fault of the matter to be irrelevant, in light of the fact that McD's could have easily paid her medical bills just to be nice, and therefore they aren't nice and should be punished. Jurors seemed to offer to opinion on anything McD's did wrong, except to seem too aloof and cold during the trial. That is the concern I'm talking about. That plaintiffs (and, perhaps more importantly, attorneys who do this for a living), can win based solely on sympathy for their damages, and the ability of a corporation to pay, regardless of whether they have a good case against that corporation for why.
Yeah, I pretty clearly stated that, before either of you guys chimed in and echoed me. I'm not sure you're following.
Like, they changed their business process probably in some small part due to cases like this, and their customers are safer for it. Isn't this sort of how the tort system is supposed to work?
Only because arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. The point is not to move the wall, but to make sure other see why it should be moved.
No, it is indeed rationally challenging the characterization that they gave the money to the defendant. Because that is indeed not the correct characterization.
If any judge did say that my god, what have we become. The legislative branch did not intend for the judicial branch to do fucking anything. Because the legislative branch did not create the judicial branch. The constitution created the judicial branch and only gave the legislature the power to create courts. The judicial branch has its power vested by the constitution.
Most importantly to the question of what tort law is is the conception of common law that has been passed down from the English courts. You know, the basis for our judicial system. Yea. the common law was not created by the legislature. As far as i can tell there are no binding federal statutes with regards to tort law.[States often do have civil codes that may cover specifics, but are unlikely to be as constructive as to provide intent]
This is an emotional, irrational belief on your part. It is completely untrue in the real world. I realize that you have made up your mind, but the facts on which you claim to base your opinion are carefully cherry-picked.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Not sure if you wanted to get into a discussion on the theory of government, but this is not completely accurate. Liability does derive largely out of custom, and English common law is often cited to support a decision, so long as no actual law or case history exists to refer to. But the more difficult and frequent an issue becomes, the more likely it will need to be decided on in a manner more certain than historical common law; by an act of legislature and/or a high court decision thereof. Issue such as what constitute "liability" or "defect" are often codified into legislative statutes at the state level, and that is absolutely where authority comes from in these matters, unless a supreme court feels that the statute itself is unconsitutional. In the case of McMahon, Indiana Code on liability and defect are what they are referring to. And, as I and the U.S. Courts are saying, such statutes do not appear to be intended as mandatory corporate-sponsored accident insurance.
Anyway, this is nitpicky, the point is that last line there. Tort isn't supposed to be an insurance program. We don't have any recorded opinion to refer to in the Liebeck case, but the facts, precedents, and juror interviews seem to indicate that the case was decided due to her injuries being so upsetting, and McDonalds not seeming to to care enough about it. Others have tried to argue in this thread that Coporations ought to just pay any reasonable claims, because they can, even if they aren't significantly at fault.
And I do believe that coffee cups and such have gotten even safer. I'm interested to know if it has further decreased the incidence of burns. If so, I'd rather it have come to pass because of a decision regarding the safety features of cups, not one that was argued based on coffee being too hot when it is at a completely normal temperature, or decided on how McD's seemed so callous and needed to be taught some manners. If the case had suggested that there were safer cups and McD's just wasn't using them, I think I might be on Liebeck's side.
Or you can talk to someone who has worked with products liability for years, like me. And you can ask your health department to have food inspections to go check the temp. Coffee should not cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns. I can't tell you how many times I have sloshed a little of my own coffee on me at home and it was a 1st degree burn. 1st degree = redness; 2nd degree = blisters, 3rd degree = blackening or whitening of the skin and has burned several layers. Yeah 2nd degree burns aren't as bad as 3rd degree but per the hospital I was at while my husband was having surgery and the ER it puts you at high risk for infection. I have blisters that are as wide as the inside of my arm, many of them. There is no reason for coffee to be that hot. And they are responsible to make sure it is the correct temperature and not a dangerous one. Demanding that I pay my ER co-pay didn't sit well with me, nor did I pay it. All I ask is that they not bill me or my insurance and eat the bill. If they can't do that, well, it will cost them a lot more. I already have food inspectors on the way out there. And the burn is evidence, along with the proof of who you bought the coffee from. No one is expected to carry a thermometer with us to test the coffee. The McDonald's case was real despite what many believe and calling that woman names is wrong. They settled out of court with her b/c they knew they were wrong. When coffee is so hot it burns 2 layers of clothes into your skin and you have to have surgeries, the coffee is too hot to be safely served. Period. I encourage all of you who have been so negative to go where ever you can find the hottest cup of coffee and pour it on yourself - but when you do pour it on yourself - you yourself will be doing self-harm. When it's accidental, that's different. We are to expect food products to be safe. This is no different than if the coffee would have had e coli in it. Now apologize to the person you all disrespected so ignorantly.