mgcsinc

You don't have a problem with negligence laws. You (and others) do seem to have a problem with the idea of strict liability, which is the controlling form of liability in certain contexts (primarily defective products) in this country. Strict liability is utterly devoid of any sense of "personal responsibility" -- that's the entire point. And the system has thought long and hard about it, and it's what we've got, for very good reason.

I'm not saying that strict liability, or anything like it, would apply in this case. What I am saying is that it's very common for non-lawyers to get all huffy, because they understand legal liability to be all about "personal responsibility" and such common-sense principles. Sometimes, it's not.

Judges, who are themselves ex- and future-lawyers, make all this law (contrary, perhaps, to what everyone seems to learn in their middle school civics class). So while I could attempt to defend the system against the idea that it is designed to line the pockets of lawyers, doing so convincingly takes more effort than I am willing to put in.

Maybe someday, twelve randos will get to take that shot in the dark. I don't see UA letting them get that chance, though

weero

I believe both statements to be unfounded. Neither did the people make any such decision, it much more grew from a disproportionally strong court system and the interests of certain agents within it.

And 2nd all these claims that regulation or punitive damages make the life of people safer are merely perpetuated and never subject to hard experimental scrutiny. You are not less safe in a coffee shop in Europe and until recently they had not even liability and certainly no punitive damages.

EsquireFlyer

+1. Really, a second-degree burn is "not exactly a big deal"??

IAH-OIL-TRASH

You sit down at diner counter and order cup of coffee. Customer next to accidently knocks coffee onto your lap. You sue diner.

You sit in airplane seat and order cup of coffee. Passenger in front of you causes coffee to spill onto your lap. You sue United.

This is the state of the American legal system. Pathetic.

astroflyer

I didn't mean to minimize the fact that these can be serious, but typically they do not require treatment by a medical professional. I also realize there's a range of what is considered second degree. I can't imagine the temperature of coffee I've ever been served on UA to approach anywhere near something that requires medical treatment, and I've certainly spilled it on myself numerous times.

In any case, the real point is that this lawsuit is almost certainly frivolous

PTravel

In the US, anyone can sue anyone else for anything -- no one "screens" initial filings. Frivolous suits (which this may or may not be) are disposed of with motions to dismiss in federal court and either motions to dismiss or demurrers in state court (depending on that state's rules of civil procedure).

It always amazes how some people condemn the American legal system without knowing the first thing about it.

LilAbner

I go to IAH and some guy with oily hair accidentally brushes up against me in the Premier Boarding line --- I'm suing!

I then get on the plane and the same guy sits next to me and accidently knocks his trash (pre-departure paper napkin) onto my side of the center divider --- I'm suing!

mgcsinc

Neither of those things caused second degree burns, and neither of them could be prevented by UA using a simple, cheap fix.

kale73

Since I don't drink coffee I would say the logical response of the airline would be to stop serving coffee altogether. I mean seriously, if a bottle of cold or even room temperature water is such a threat to the airline that it can't pass through the security checkpoint, why is the airline giving potential terrorists cups of scalding hot liquid in flight? It's crazy!

garykung

Another frivolous lawsuit.

1. If the news is correct, it was the passenger at the front who caused the damage, not pmCO.

2. Even pmCO may be negligent in this case, UA can easily get out by comparative negligence by the plaintiff herself (no one told you not to hold the coffee cup).

3. Beside - as a fact, it is the practice of airlines (not just UA) to put thing on the tray to avoid overhead accidental spilling.

But at least the lawyer has some brain - suing maximum by the Montreal Convention, not unlimited.

mgcsinc

Comparative negligence doesn't eliminate liability, except in the four states that still have contributory negligence. All that's needed to draw a settlement in a case like this is the ounce of liability necessary to get the plaintiff past a motion to dismiss, and comparative negligence ain't gonna help on that front.

garykung

Sorry I meant - Contributory negligence

zombietooth

I think that the best "centralized changes" would involve banning all "hot" liquids from airplanes. Including the Starbucks that you buy yourself in the terminal.

We all pay for these settlements and litigation costs because the airline does change behavior in response and does pass along increased costs, e.g. liability insurance, spill-proof cups, etc. The airline here did not intend for their customer to be injured, and, IMHO, did not create an environment of unacceptable risk. In the absence of willful negligence or disregard of safe procedures/behavior, I can see no reason, from a moral perspective, to give this Bozo a dime. I fully understand that, legally, she does have a case.

mgcsinc

I'm originally from the DC area, which is the last great bastion of contributory negligence. Always scares me a little when I go back

I'm not sure she has a case, legally. Didn't mean to imply that I thought she did.

My point was this: In the products liability context, we've come to have a system that doesn't care about how things look from a "moral perspective," that doesn't care whether someone was acting with "willful negligence" or if they created an "unacceptable risk." All the products liability system cares about is spreading the injuries from the occasional person whose toaster explodes to all the other toaster purchasers who buy toasters that, by the grace of god, do not explode. Most non-lawyers don't understand that that's they way products liability works, and are kinda surprised to learn that it works that way. My point was that it's easy to imagine a world where we'd want the same kind of cost-spreading and centralized risk-reduction that we get in products.

zombietooth

I meant only that her case was unlikely to be thrown-out and could proceed to trial or settlement.

The fact that dangerous human behavior needs to be anticipated and, no matter what you do to prevent it, liability still cannot removed from someone misusing your "product" is what I have a problem with. Hence, we get the ridiculous warnings in the manuals of corded hedge trimmers warning you not to use them in the bathtub.

Holding companies liable for a dangerous product is fine. Holding them responsible when someone misuses it is stupid and very costly to society. --"Never use your gun as a hammer".