<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>colpabar</author><text>I think people are just somewhat annoyed because your comments seem argumentative. This is a very famous case and there is tons of material online to read, including the court documents themselves! I have also heard from friends who went to law school that this is used as an example of a case that &lt;i&gt;isn&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; a frivolous lawsuit despite appearances.&lt;p&gt;It just seems like you are very set in your views and are &lt;i&gt;demanding&lt;/i&gt; that we all argue with you, and if that&amp;#x27;s the case, make a new post about the mcdonald&amp;#x27;s case because this thread isn&amp;#x27;t even about that.</text><parent_chain><item><author>giantg2</author><text>&amp;quot;McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings&amp;#x2F;awards.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s an outcome&amp;#x2F;result. That has no real bearing on the culpability.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn&amp;#x27;t interested in settling.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Again, nothing speaking to culpability here.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Ok, so this is basically what my comment said. It seems 185 is about 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. It also has a warning on it (jury said it&amp;#x27;s not big enough, but maybe we should have everyone sign waivers first?).&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Depends on your viewpoint as to who is &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Edit: why disagree with this?</text></item><item><author>vkou</author><text>The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard.&lt;p&gt;McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing.&lt;p&gt;The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs.&lt;p&gt;She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn&amp;#x27;t interested in settling.&lt;p&gt;The award was later reduced.&lt;p&gt;If the answer to bad corporate behaviour is not regulation, but rather lawsuits, then that lawsuit perfectly encapsulated the series of legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor, that has been alerted of a problem in their product, and refuses to resolve it.</text></item><item><author>giantg2</author><text>Why was the McDonald&amp;#x27;s one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees?&lt;p&gt;Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It&amp;#x27;s literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability.&lt;p&gt;Edit 2: someone here provided the additional type of information that I was interested in. It wasn&amp;#x27;t just the temperature, but also that the cup had a design flaw that made it likely to collapse if you took the lid off. Thanks!</text></item><item><author>Latty</author><text>&amp;quot;Unwanted birthday party&amp;quot; is such a misleading thing to claim as the root cause, reminds me of the McDonald&amp;#x27;s coffee case, framing very legitimate lawsuits as frivolous.&lt;p&gt;Employer put him into a bad situation against his will, when he&amp;#x27;d warned them and it wasn&amp;#x27;t necessary for his job, and then fired him when he had the reaction he&amp;#x27;d foreseen. Obvious wrongful termination and horrific management.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Employee’s unwanted birthday party nets him $450k after lawsuit</title><url>https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article260445977.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Random_BSD_Geek</author><text>Genuinely not sure if you&amp;#x27;re trolling or not, but....&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings&amp;#x2F;awards.
...
&amp;gt; Edit: why disagree with this?&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;re asking internet randos to explain something to you that is an easily researched matter of public record. I too used to think the McDonald&amp;#x27;s coffee case was a punchline for an overly litigious America. Then I read the horrifying details.</text><parent_chain><item><author>giantg2</author><text>&amp;quot;McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Ok, then I want to hear the reasoning behind those rulings&amp;#x2F;awards.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s an outcome&amp;#x2F;result. That has no real bearing on the culpability.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn&amp;#x27;t interested in settling.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Again, nothing speaking to culpability here.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Ok, so this is basically what my comment said. It seems 185 is about 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. It also has a warning on it (jury said it&amp;#x27;s not big enough, but maybe we should have everyone sign waivers first?).&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Depends on your viewpoint as to who is &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Edit: why disagree with this?</text></item><item><author>vkou</author><text>The coffee was much hotter than the industry standard.&lt;p&gt;McDonalds already had multiple successful suits against them about this very thing.&lt;p&gt;The lady in question got incredibly serious burns on her legs.&lt;p&gt;She originally sued only for medical expenses, and McDonalds wasn&amp;#x27;t interested in settling.&lt;p&gt;The award was later reduced.&lt;p&gt;If the answer to bad corporate behaviour is not regulation, but rather lawsuits, then that lawsuit perfectly encapsulated the series of legal escalations necessary to deal with a bad corporate actor, that has been alerted of a problem in their product, and refuses to resolve it.</text></item><item><author>giantg2</author><text>Why was the McDonald&amp;#x27;s one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees?&lt;p&gt;Edit: Why are people disagreeing with this? It&amp;#x27;s literally 2 questions and it seems the temperature was the issue when looking at culpability.&lt;p&gt;Edit 2: someone here provided the additional type of information that I was interested in. It wasn&amp;#x27;t just the temperature, but also that the cup had a design flaw that made it likely to collapse if you took the lid off. Thanks!</text></item><item><author>Latty</author><text>&amp;quot;Unwanted birthday party&amp;quot; is such a misleading thing to claim as the root cause, reminds me of the McDonald&amp;#x27;s coffee case, framing very legitimate lawsuits as frivolous.&lt;p&gt;Employer put him into a bad situation against his will, when he&amp;#x27;d warned them and it wasn&amp;#x27;t necessary for his job, and then fired him when he had the reaction he&amp;#x27;d foreseen. Obvious wrongful termination and horrific management.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Employee’s unwanted birthday party nets him $450k after lawsuit</title><url>https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article260445977.html</url></story>