
How A Lawsuit Over Hot Coffee Helped Erode the 7th Amendment - zootar
http://priceonomics.com/how-a-lawsuit-over-hot-coffee-helped-erode-the-7th/
======
tzs
"Tort reform" can seriously screw over people, because the parties that tend
to favor tort reform (by which they mean greatly limiting the ability of
people to sue and/or the amount they can win if they do sue) also tend to
favor limiting government regulation and oversight. That can leave nothing to
compensate for the removal of the deterrence factor that the threat of
lawsuits provides against bad corporate or professional behavior.

A sad example is provided by Texas. Protection against bad doctors was
provided in Texas by three things: the Texas Medical Board, malpractice suits,
and hospital managers. The legislature greatly limited the amount patients can
win in malpractice suits, and they made it so hospitals cannot be held liable
for hiring incompetent doctors unless the plaintiff can prove the hospital
knew the doctor was an extreme risk and ignored this--and they made it so the
plaintiff usually cannot get access to the documents that would be needed to
prove this.

This shifted most of the burden of protecting Texans from bad doctors to the
Texas Medical Board, which was not designed for that. It was more designed for
licensing and ensuring that doctors keep with standards, not for investigating
bad doctors. The Medical Board was not given any more resources to deal with
this new and heavy workload, and so bad doctors could practice much longer
than they would have been able to before the legislature decided to do their
tort reform.

This article on the Dr. Christopher Duntsch case shows who wrong this can go:
[http://www.texasobserver.org/anatomy-
tragedy/](http://www.texasobserver.org/anatomy-tragedy/)

~~~
spikels
Nice theory but the reality is quite different. Medical care is far from a
solved problem. For example if you are a teenager who gets an aortic aneurism
(literal your heart is about to explode) in a car accident only 50% will
survive even with the best care. How can cardiac surgeons afford to save half
of these people if they know they will probably be sued by many of the other
half with Texas juries awarding millions in damages for many of these
statitically unavoidable deaths? They can't and neither can their insurers.

For decades Texas juries were awarding so much money so often it became
impossible for many high risk specialties, such as delivering babies (think of
the downside versus upside), to get insured. In 2000 around a quarter of
doctors in Texas were being sued for medical malpractice. Most insurance
companies stopped writing insurance for doctors in Texas and the few remaining
cooperatives faced bankruptcy. This is why both the Texas legislature and
Texas voters (Prop 12) decided to limit damage awards in 2003 to what is now
around an inflation adjusted $2 million per victim. Similar things happened in
other states with California leading the way in the mid-1970s with a even more
restrictive law (no inflation indexing - still the same $250,000 cap as 40
years ago)[1].

Remember the Texas lawyers and juries who have pretty much ruined the US
patent system. I that who should an best police doctors? The Texas Medical
Board seems like a pretty good approach: people with actual medical training
and experience reviewing complaints about doctors. Maybe there is something
better for getting rid of incompetent doctors than the Texas Medical Board
(ideas pleae?) but unrestricted litigation proved unsustainable.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Ref...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_Injury_Compensation_Reform_Act)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Don't get me wrong but isn't this the fault of the juries? Who by the way must
also be the voters?

I mean if you are happily awarding damages to heart surgeons who only save
half their patients when the rest of the planet does not better, then the
problem is in the jury box? no?

~~~
dfc

      > Who by the way must also be the voters?
    

I am assuming this was a question and not a passive aggressive taunt. The
answer is "No, it is not the case that being on a jury is proof that the juror
has voted in an election." Many states use voter _registration_ rolls as an
input to the jury duty selection process but I can not find any that screen
potential jurors based on actually participating in an election. Furthermore
voter registration is not the only way that a citizen can end up being called
for jury duty; states often use other DBs eg DMV, Hunting/Fishing licenses,
etc for jury duty.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Not meant to be P-A taunt, though hell this is the Internet so reasonable
supposition :-)

No it was really "the public" I meant. Voters, jurors, us in other words. If
Texas juries in one county are making patents a laughing stock, it really is
upto the rest of us - either in that county, or in juries in other counties
and countries, to change that. Or perhaps vote it out of existence. It just
seems to me that we read an article and get the "something must be
done"'feeling, and are happy when the something does not involve us, hard
work, care or a long time. Yet those something's rarely work out.

in short, the current problem with patents is not the fault of various jurors
and voters in a small part of Texas. it's our fault.

~~~
dfc
Okay, I am in complete agreement with this sentiment. Where I disagree is with
the notion that jurors and voters are equivalent and/or using the two terms as
if they are interchangeable. I think it would be interesting to compare the
demographics of juries vs voters.[^1] I have a sneaking suspicion that the two
populations are dramatically different.

[^1]: I posted a question at the SX for politics but I have never had much
luck there.
[http://politics.stackexchange.com/q/3218/1926](http://politics.stackexchange.com/q/3218/1926)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Well I have only ever been in one population to be honest, so maybe. But it is
probably pretty random, so I would be quite shocked if there was a dramatic
difference in demographics of both.

~~~
dfc
Why would Jurors be random? You think that voir dire is just two attorneys
rolling dice?

------
retr0grad3
My wife is a defense attorney that works claims litigation, e.g insurance
defense for carriers. Watching "Hot Coffee" was very difficult for her. Part
of her job during the pre-trial phase of any case is to push as much potential
liability on a claimant as possible and push for mediation; trial should be
avoided at all cost. |If a case goes to trial it is her job to make the
claimant liable (enough) so that the damages are split better.

For 'frivolous cases' to actually hit trial months of depositions, research,
and meditations have to fail. If a case actually goes to trial it's because
one side feels so confident in their case that mediation is not an option.

As a side note, in insurance cases in Texas, the jury is not allowed to know
that any insurance money has been paid. So in a situation where someone is
hurt in an accident by another driver then sues for medical expenses, the jury
is not told that the medical expenses (are often) already paid for by the
carriers. They're also not told that, no matter how much money they award, if
it falls under the civil caps on awards (in Texas) that the judge will
automatically lower their award after they leave the court room.

~~~
jdmichal
> As a side note, in insurance cases in Texas, the jury is not allowed to know
> that any insurance money has been paid. So in a situation where someone is
> hurt in an accident by another driver then sues for medical expenses, the
> jury is not told that the medical expenses (are often) already paid for by
> the carriers. They're also not told that, no matter how much money they
> award, if it falls under the civil caps on awards (in Texas) that the judge
> will automatically lower their award after they leave the court room.

I agree with most of those points. Yes, the jury does not know them, and that
effects their decisions. Knowing those things would also effect their
decisions. Because that's how decisions work. Therefore, the stance you must
take is, which scenario will yield results which are more appropriate?

I assume the jury is also not told whether the defendant has liability
insurance against the results of the very case being deliberated either, which
is a point just as salient. To me, it should not make any difference whether
someone had the foresight to insure themselves when being awarded damages.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
I've always (and I mean always; I've long been aware about the real story)
thought the comments about the coffee lawsuit were extremely cruel. 'Oh, hot
coffee fell on her lap and burned her, and she sued for millions in damages!'
\- hot coffee at an unreasonably high temperature fell on her lap and gave her
_third-degree burns_. To suggest she was suing over something trivial is
horribly disrespectful to a woman who suffered that.

~~~
crusso
Sorry, I'm still someone who doesn't get it. Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205
degrees F), and I personally like it to be freshly brewed as I drink it. As I
very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks coffee today at the mall, I was very
conscious of the fact that I had a hot beverage in my hand. If I had
accidentally spilled the coffee on myself or others it could have caused some
serious burns... who else's fault would it have been but my own? Would it have
been Starbuck's fault? I just can't adjust my thinking to making that so.

If I had gone into Williams & Sonoma and carelessly stabbed someone with a
kitchen knife. Would that have been W&S's fault? It just makes no sense to me
how we want to hold others responsible for giving us what we've asked for.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> Coffee is brewed hot (195 - 205 degrees F), and I personally like it to be
> freshly brewed as I drink it. As I very carefully sipped my fresh Starbucks
> coffee today at the mall,

Starbucks coffee is not served anywhere near that hot. By their corporate
guidance, the normal acceptable range of temperature for coffee served to
customers is 145-165F. If you poured that in your lap, it would be very
unlikely for you to receive third degree burns. The burn risk of water goes up
very rapidly as temperature is increased above that. This is the entire point
of the court case -- nearly everyone else in the country served coffee ~30-40F
cooler than Mac, due to having found the risks too great, yet even after
hundreds of complaints, MacDonalds decided to keep their temperature higher.

~~~
travisp
>Starbucks coffee is not served anywhere near that hot.

True, it's usually not, although it's considered a "hack" to get better coffee
to ask for hotter coffee from Starbucks (so that your drink stays warm in the
cold and when you are taking your coffee with you):
[http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-
hot-201...](http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-2013-12)

The National Coffee Association recommends brewing between 195 and 205 and
holding around 180 to 185 if not serving immediately (which it recommends).
Source:
[http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71](http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71)

Many people who brew coffee at home have coffee that can be as hot as 205F.
Fancy fresh pour over coffee from a nice coffeehouse will have just been
brewed with water around that temperature.

And it also raises the interesting question of what these places are supposed
to do about tea: if they serve you hot water and a tea bag, the water served
should be close to boiling if it's herbal or black tea to get a proper
extraction.

Either way, it's not quite so simple as "McDonalds was careless".

~~~
vidarh
> Either way, it's not quite so simple as "McDonalds was careless".

No, it's far worse than McDonalds being careless: They _knew_ that their
practice was dangerous, and regularly resulted in medical treatments, yet did
not change their procedures.

~~~
Dylan16807
Unless they serve the coffee at a completely unrealistic temperature,
_someone_ out of millions will be regularly injured. So how many people are
still injured at 160 degrees?

The fact that someone gets hurt does not prove that there was negligence.
Compare how many people get into car accidents on the way to McDonalds.

------
hawkharris
Hot Coffee is an important documentary for all Americans, but parts of it are
especially relevant to those of us who work in tech. The movie shows how
arbitration clauses, enforced by many telecomm and software companies,
threaten our constitutional rights to bring civil charges against the firms.
As one expert in the film puts it, we'd be better off to adopt the term tort
_deform_.

~~~
malandrew
While not a binding arbitration clause in a EULA or ToS, one relevant example
to use in tech would be Naval Ravikant (AngelList founder) and the other
defendants in the ePinions case. Had arbitration clauses been signed as part
of employment, they probably would not have gotten fair equitable relief in
that case.

For anyone curious, here's the origin claim as filed:
[http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/Epinions.pdf](http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/Epinions.pdf)

More info:
[http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/12/09/epinions_settl...](http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/12/09/epinions_settlement_a_black_eye_to_vcs.html)

------
jqm
I would say police abuse does appear to be a serious problem and lawsuits are
probably the main thing that keep it in check. The departments themselves
don't seem to deal with offending officers properly very often. It always
pains me to see settlements and the offending officers returning to duty with
little repercussion.

Interesting article.

~~~
Zigurd
Bonding seems like a reasonable solution. If each individual's bonding risk
showed up as cost to a PD, there would probably be a sudden interest in body
cams and training on how to deescalate situations.

------
PhantomGremlin
I generally agree with the article, but it gets one thing wrong. It says:

    
    
       the evidence does not show an epidemic
       of frivolous lawsuits winning jackpots
    

My counterexample is patent trolls availing themselves of the hospitality of
the "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas".

------
rayiner
See also, this Harvard study on medical malpractice.
[http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-
releases/2006-releases/...](http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-
releases/2006-releases/press05102006.html)

------
InclinedPlane
The only part of the bill of rights that hasn't been under relentless attack
in the last few decades has been the 3rd Amendment. I'm sure if we give it
time that'll happen soon enough too.

~~~
dthal
Well...there is this case: [http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-
says-police-...](http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-
occupation-vio) EDIT: erased one of two links

------
rdtsc
If you are interested and have time watch the "Hot Coffee" documentary.

It explores this very case and issues related to it.

[http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Hot-
Coffee/70167106?trkid=22233...](http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Hot-
Coffee/70167106?trkid=222336)

It was interesting to me because I had heard about it, or rather was told
about it this lawsuit and what I was told and believed about that case was
wrong for the longest time. This film explores how that PR effort started and
how successful it was.

~~~
defen
A discussion of this documentary is a significant portion of the linked
post...

------
Svip
I am surprised to learn that arbitration clauses are legal in contracts with
consumers. Arbitration is legal in Denmark, but only between businesses or -
in few cases - private citizens who agree to them, but they can never be part
of a contract with a consumer. Netflix tried that when they moved into
Denmark, thus null and voiding the entire contract between Netflix and their
consumers.

------
A1kmm
I think the article makes a good case for retaining tort law, but when it
comes to people's health and safety, a public health system, combined with
government lead scheme to enforce product safety through the criminal courts
would be a better answer to some of the problems.

If the government proactively monitored product safety and responded to
complaints, it would be able to shut down dangerous practices (and doctors
consistently making bad decisions) before problems happen, and also engage in
education so that businesses that aren't aware that their products could be
dangerous can fix the problems.

If a someone is injured, it is reasonable for the government to pay for this
to support the public, because otherwise getting the financial support the
unlucky injured person needs depends on being able to afford a lengthy legal
battle, and also on the business being unable to pay. In addition, some
decisions are a trade-off (especially for doctors); for example, getting an
X-ray might increase your chances of cancer, but might also detect a very rare
disease; a doctor might reasonably decide, in the patient's best interest,
that given the symptoms, the increased risk of cancer is not worth the
miniscule risk of not detecting the disease. If the patient is then severely
injured by the disease, should the doctor have to pay out? If the patient gets
support from the government either way, then the question doesn't need to be
answered. It is likely that malpractice suits encourage doctors to minimise
the risk that the patient can prove a tort, rather than to act in the best
interests of the patient - it is very hard to prove that a particular X-ray
contributed to cancer later in life.

This is also fairer to businesses, because when a certain decision is unsafe
relative to other practices but has a low probability of resulting in a
lawsuit, most small or medium sized business engaging in the risky practice
may never actually have the bad outcome happen, purely due to luck. If the
government prosecutes unsafe practices, rather than the civil courts award
punitive damages when unsafe practices lead to a bad outcome, businesses are
discouraged or prevented from 'playing the lottery', and the desired public
policy outcome of fewer unsafe practices is more directly achieved. Likewise,
businesses that play it safe by industry standards but, through bad luck, have
a bad outcome are not over-punished for being unlucky (this applies especially
to doctors making necessary trade-offs).

------
yuhong
As a side note, the cost of the lawsuits (relative to the benefits) is one of
the reasons why I don't think anti discrimination laws are a good idea. I am
thinking of ditching them, but allowing the EEOC or similar to order
particular sets of companies to stop discrimination for a period of time if
necessary.

------
falcor84
For some reason, (perhaps the use of Title Case) I thought this would be about
the GTA mod
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod)).
Well, never mind, this was interesting as well.

------
higherpurpose
> The judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, for a total of $640,000.
> McDonalds appealed and later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount
> believed to be between $400,000 and $600,000.

Why would she settle for the SAME amount?! Makes no sense.

~~~
PeterisP
To actually get the money and end it, instead of spending a lot more extra
time, effort and money throughout the appeals process.

------
fsk
If damages are limited when you do something wrong and get caught, that
increases the incentive to misbehave.

------
toasted
USA has 281 lawyers per 100,000, britain 94, japan 7.

Lawyers will become as powerful in society as you let them become.

~~~
AppSec
Or you could say the opposite is true: Lawyers are only needed when you have
the freedoms that a society needs.

------
raldi
Why are punitive damages paid to the plaintiff rather than the government's
general fund?

------
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.

------
knodi
How can arbitration be legally exist... never agree to arbitration.

~~~
dredmorbius
Good luck with that.

There are numerous standard-form contracts (particularly in healthcare) in
which that's not an option.

Though I would strongly argue to not agree to arbitration if you have any
choice in the matter. If provided with a contract in which arbitration is a
condition, strike and initial. It's now up to the other side.

------
icantthinkofone
> she relates all the checks that exist to prevent greedy people from suing
> for unreasonable amounts of money ...

Note the part of the sentence, "unreasonable amounts of money". That doesn't
mean the lawsuits still don't happen, costing business owners thousands of
dollars just to get them thrown out. Sometimes it's cheaper to throw the
complainant a few thousand dollars, which they'll claim as a win, just to go
away cause it's cheaper than going to court.

I was going to show two examples from my own restaurants but decided against
it. You would not believe these were even considered by any attorney much less
the judge who was willing to listen to them.

------
igl
I heard of that, but I actually never thought this story is true. What about
the drying the cat in the microwave lawsuit?? I'm scared america!

------
RealGeek
I highly recommend watching a documentary called Hot Coffee
([http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp](http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp)).
It goes into details about how corporate lobbying eroded consumer rights.

~~~
eksith
Perhaps you should scroll down a tad. The linked article discusses that same
documentary extensively.

~~~
notdonspaulding
Yeah, both the movie and Saladoff's interviews are linked extensively in the
article. To the point where I'm wondering if it isn't Priceonomics business
model to write undergrad or grad-level blog posts for pay.

Anyone know how they choose their topics?

------
everyone
I regard that as a frivolous lawsuit. As unfortunate as the outcome was,
simply put it was her own damn fault. If McDonalds provided her with the
coffee with no defects (to the cup for instance) then there was no negligence
on their part. Obviously if you spill a hot drink on yourself your going to
burn yourself. What is the difference between that and selling someone a
hammer and then they crush their hand with it? Admittedly from my perspective
here in Ireland I may view this differently from yanks. We drink a lot of tea
and good tea must be boiling when you add the teabag, also drive-throughs are
a lot less common so you will typically not have your beverage in a moving
vehicle.

~~~
waterfowl
No, there's hot and there's "almost boiling" and they'd been told several
times to stop keeping the coffee that hot but somehow it saved time. Key words
from the lawsuit "fused labia." It was not minor burning.

~~~
everyone
Well there was some mention of the cups not being fit for purpose and the
temperature not being the standard which are valid points, but I do not think
it is fitting to stress or mention the severity of the injuries (as many
people here are doing) when debating the issue at hand. How severe the
injuries are is immaterial to any negligence on the part of McDonalds. That is
just logic. To illustrate: I could buy a "harmless" marshmallow from a sweet
shop and then _kill myself_ with it, by using it to block my airway.

~~~
DanBC
The severity of the injuries is important because McDonalds had ignored many
previous accidents and had ignored a CDC request to reduce the temperature.

Reducing the temperature reduces the severity of the injuries.

Using your marshmallow analogy: if you sold the marshmallows in individual
plastic shells and children started eating the marshmallows by sucking them
out of the shells, and children were sometimes choking because they were
inhalling the confection, and you were told about this but ignored it, then
yes you probably should bear some responsibility.

I case you think this is unlikely: [http://www.food.gov.uk/news-
updates/news/2011/mar/jellycupba...](http://www.food.gov.uk/news-
updates/news/2011/mar/jellycupban#.U27wVmq9LTp)

~~~
rdtsc
> The severity of the injuries is important because McDonalds had ignored many
> previous accidents and had ignored a CDC request to reduce the temperature.

That and also it was a very important element in the PR campaign that was
waged. Hiding and obscuring the extend of damages was crucial to its success.
It would be hard to paint it as "oops someone burned themselves with some
coffee, how silly" it they had to mentioned those were life threatening burns.

