Hot coffee case of McDonalds ...

[Ornery]

McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Ornery
McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

Customer falls, unless it's on the slippery surface of their floor or because of something they did, are not negligent. You cannot justify disagreeing with the coffee being too hot by saying more customer fall than burn themselves on coffee.

McDonald's was negligent. For the third time, negligence is defined as "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. "
It is very reasonable for them to serve their coffee at the still hot temperature of 160 degrees, after the coffee had already brewed and gathered its flavor, but they failed to do so and someone got hurt. They knew the risks but did not change their policies, even after 700 other people had already burned themselves.

As far as not being able to foolproof things... the answer to coffee that is too hot is simple and should have been taken care of after the first hundred accidents at the least.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Ness

Hmm. Same old Alkemyst.

Am I the only one that gets the impression that MacBaine hit the nail on the head and he is trying to talk his way out of a corner?

yeah everyone that would reply in error to me must be right in your opinion.

 

[Ornery]

They pay out TONS more money to people who fall because they tripped over their own feet! No matter what you do, people will find a way to hurt themselves. IMO, that's what their insurance is for, but our bleeding heart juries of equally idiot peers, are too willing to dole out the big bucks. It's like hitting the lottery in this country!

If some bonehead spilled a 160 degree hot chocolate on their infant child, scarring the kid, we'd have the same result.

I'll save you the trouble of the next post. McDonalds is fully aware, that their food is full of fat! Therefore, they must be made to pay!

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Ornery
They pay out TONS more money to people who fall because they tripped over their own feet! No matter what you do, people will find a way to hurt themselves. IMO, that's what their insurance is for, but our bleeding heart juries of equally idiot peers, are too willing to dole out the big bucks. It's like hitting the lottery in this country!

If some bonehead spilled a 160 degree hot chocolate on their infant child, scarring the kid, we'd have the same result.

I'll save you the trouble of the next post. McDonalds is fully aware, that their food is full of fat! Therefore, they must be made to pay!

Still has jack squatt to do with this case.

 

[Ornery]

There is NOTHING McD can do to save themselves from the likes of Stella Liebeck et al...

Couple Sue McDonald's Over Tough Bagel

• A couple is suing the franchisee of a McDonald's restaurant, claiming an improperly prepared bagel damaged the husband's teeth and their marriage.
  
  John and Cecelia O'Hare sued Friday for unspecified damages more than $15,000. They alleged the McDonald's, owned by Johnstone Foods Inc., was negligent and violated an "implied warranty that the food sold was reasonably fit for human consumption."
  
  They contend in the suit that John O'Hare broke teeth and bridgework on Feb. 1, 2002 when he bit into the bagel. The suit did not say what exactly was wrong with the bagel.

"Vegetarian sues McDonald's over meaty fries".

• Seattle attorney Harish Bharti wants hundreds of millions of dollars from the burger chain for its acknowledged policy of adding small amounts of beef flavoring to its french fries, which he says is deceptive toward vegetarian customers (ABCNews.com/ Reuters, May 3). Notable detail that hasn't made it into American accounts of the case we've seen, but does appear in the Times of India: "When he is not practising law in Seattle, Bharti says he teaches at Gerry Spence's exclusive College for Trial Lawyers in Wyoming". Does this mean you can be a predator without being a carnivore? ("US Hindus take on McDonald's over French fries", Times of India, May 3) (see also Aug. 30, 1999).

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Ornery
McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

Customer falls, unless it's on the slippery surface of their floor or because of something they did, are not negligent. You cannot justify disagreeing with the coffee being too hot by saying more customer fall than burn themselves on coffee.

McDonald's was negligent. For the third time, negligence is defined as "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. "
It is very reasonable for them to serve their coffee at the still hot temperature of 160 degrees, after the coffee had already brewed and gathered its flavor, but they failed to do so and someone got hurt. They knew the risks but did not change their policies, even after 700 other people had already burned themselves.

As far as not being able to foolproof things... the answer to coffee that is too hot is simple and should have been taken care of after the first hundred accidents at the least.

according to your definition every knife manufacturer in the country should have been sued multiple times. because guess what, knifes are inherently dangerous, the better the knife the more dangerous. for their intended use? no, for accidents, yes, EXTREMELY dangerous. caution caution.

and yes, the parrallel again is accurate as the cup of coffee was never INTENDED to be poured on ones groin.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Ornery
McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

Customer falls, unless it's on the slippery surface of their floor or because of something they did, are not negligent. You cannot justify disagreeing with the coffee being too hot by saying more customer fall than burn themselves on coffee.

McDonald's was negligent. For the third time, negligence is defined as "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. "
It is very reasonable for them to serve their coffee at the still hot temperature of 160 degrees, after the coffee had already brewed and gathered its flavor, but they failed to do so and someone got hurt. They knew the risks but did not change their policies, even after 700 other people had already burned themselves.

As far as not being able to foolproof things... the answer to coffee that is too hot is simple and should have been taken care of after the first hundred accidents at the least.

according to your definition every knife manufacturer in the country should have been sued multiple times. because guess what, knifes are inherently dangerous, the better the knife the more dangerous. for their intended use? no, for accidents, yes, EXTREMELY dangerous. caution caution.

and yes, the parrallel again is accurate as the cup of coffee was never INTENDED to be poured on ones groin.

For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Ornery
McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

Customer falls, unless it's on the slippery surface of their floor or because of something they did, are not negligent. You cannot justify disagreeing with the coffee being too hot by saying more customer fall than burn themselves on coffee.

McDonald's was negligent. For the third time, negligence is defined as "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. "
It is very reasonable for them to serve their coffee at the still hot temperature of 160 degrees, after the coffee had already brewed and gathered its flavor, but they failed to do so and someone got hurt. They knew the risks but did not change their policies, even after 700 other people had already burned themselves.

As far as not being able to foolproof things... the answer to coffee that is too hot is simple and should have been taken care of after the first hundred accidents at the least.

according to your definition every knife manufacturer in the country should have been sued multiple times. because guess what, knifes are inherently dangerous, the better the knife the more dangerous. for their intended use? no, for accidents, yes, EXTREMELY dangerous. caution caution.

and yes, the parrallel again is accurate as the cup of coffee was never INTENDED to be poured on ones groin.

For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

you keep using words like reasonable without thinking reasonably. so, to use your logic, this old lady INTENTIONALLY spilled coffee on herself to "see what would happen". :roll: you contradict yourself in your own post.

10 billion cups of coffee were purchased with the expectation that it would be hot. just like people buy knifes with the expectation to be sharp.

 

:roll: to sue happy america.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Ornery
McD wasn't negligent. They sell billions of coffees without a mishap, and the very few they have can't be avoided, since some customers are total bumblers.

McD's has FAR more customer falls than they do coffee spills. They can't foolproof every aspect of doing business. Nitwits will ALWAYS find a way to hurt themselves and blame someone else.

Customer falls, unless it's on the slippery surface of their floor or because of something they did, are not negligent. You cannot justify disagreeing with the coffee being too hot by saying more customer fall than burn themselves on coffee.

McDonald's was negligent. For the third time, negligence is defined as "Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party. "
It is very reasonable for them to serve their coffee at the still hot temperature of 160 degrees, after the coffee had already brewed and gathered its flavor, but they failed to do so and someone got hurt. They knew the risks but did not change their policies, even after 700 other people had already burned themselves.

As far as not being able to foolproof things... the answer to coffee that is too hot is simple and should have been taken care of after the first hundred accidents at the least.

according to your definition every knife manufacturer in the country should have been sued multiple times. because guess what, knifes are inherently dangerous, the better the knife the more dangerous. for their intended use? no, for accidents, yes, EXTREMELY dangerous. caution caution.

and yes, the parrallel again is accurate as the cup of coffee was never INTENDED to be poured on ones groin.

For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

you keep using words like reasonable without thinking reasonably. so, to use your logic, this old lady INTENTIONALLY spilled coffee on herself to "see what would happen". :roll: you contradict yourself in your own post.

10 billion cups of coffee were purchased with the expectation that it would be hot. just like people buy knifes with the expectation to be sharp.

Wrong, 10 billion cups of coffee were purchased under the assumption that they were safe for human consumption. They were not.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. You are trying to project my suggestion about a way to discover the truth to the old lady spilling the coffee and suggesting she did it intentionally. I don't contradict myself in any way. Seriously. You talk about logic but apparently you don't even know what it is.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness
For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

you keep using words like reasonable without thinking reasonably. so, to use your logic, this old lady INTENTIONALLY spilled coffee on herself to "see what would happen". :roll: you contradict yourself in your own post.

10 billion cups of coffee were purchased with the expectation that it would be hot. just like people buy knifes with the expectation to be sharp.

Wrong, 10 billion cups of coffee were purchased under the assumption that they were safe for human consumption. They were not.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. You are trying to project my suggestion about a way to discover the truth to the old lady spilling the coffee and suggesting she did it intentionally. I don't contradict myself in any way. Seriously. You talk about logic but apparently you don't even know what it is.

fine. i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. apparently you were just being "mean spirited" when you suggested i cut off my finger, as it has NO bearing on this case whatsoever.

again, if it was UNSAFE for human consumption how were 999,999,300 cups of coffee safely consumed?? looks like pretty good odds to me.

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness
For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

you keep using words like reasonable without thinking reasonably. so, to use your logic, this old lady INTENTIONALLY spilled coffee on herself to "see what would happen". :roll: you contradict yourself in your own post.

10 billion cups of coffee were purchased with the expectation that it would be hot. just like people buy knifes with the expectation to be sharp.

Wrong, 10 billion cups of coffee were purchased under the assumption that they were safe for human consumption. They were not.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. You are trying to project my suggestion about a way to discover the truth to the old lady spilling the coffee and suggesting she did it intentionally. I don't contradict myself in any way. Seriously. You talk about logic but apparently you don't even know what it is.

fine. i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. apparently you were just being "mean spirited" when you suggested i cut off my finger, as it has NO bearing on this case whatsoever.

again, if it was UNSAFE for human consumption how were 999,999,300 cups of coffee safely consumed?? looks like pretty good odds to me.

Well the majority of people probably let them cool down first. I assume that the old lady would have after she added her creamer, if it got that far. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. It was determined that this coffee could burn both skin, mouth and throat, and when it was served it should be assumed that it is ready to drink immediately.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ness
For the fourth time:
Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

Making knives that aren't sharp is unreasonable. Having someone there to monitor your knife using is also unreasonable. There is no surprise that the knife is sharp. Again, your parallels aren't what you make them to be, and have no application to the case at hand.

The definition of the word itself says that it is a result of an unintended injury, so the fact that she was the one who spilled the coffee AGAIN only contributes to the idea that she is PARTIALLY to blame.

But if you feel so confident in your comparison, cut off a finger or two and give it a try.

you keep using words like reasonable without thinking reasonably. so, to use your logic, this old lady INTENTIONALLY spilled coffee on herself to "see what would happen". :roll: you contradict yourself in your own post.

10 billion cups of coffee were purchased with the expectation that it would be hot. just like people buy knifes with the expectation to be sharp.

Wrong, 10 billion cups of coffee were purchased under the assumption that they were safe for human consumption. They were not.

Your first paragraph makes no sense. You are trying to project my suggestion about a way to discover the truth to the old lady spilling the coffee and suggesting she did it intentionally. I don't contradict myself in any way. Seriously. You talk about logic but apparently you don't even know what it is.

fine. i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. apparently you were just being "mean spirited" when you suggested i cut off my finger, as it has NO bearing on this case whatsoever.

again, if it was UNSAFE for human consumption how were 999,999,300 cups of coffee safely consumed?? looks like pretty good odds to me.

Enough already. McD's has had 700 cases of injuries from their coffee. While a billion cups of coffee a year may seem like a lot, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the number of cups of coffee served a day in restaurants, convenience stores, etc. A quick calculation shows an average of a little under 90 cups per day per McD's restaurant. I'll bet that several of the local 24 hour type convenience stores in my city far surpass that number. (when I get coffee in the morning, one place in particular has 10 or 12 pots going) Far more traffic in and out of that convenience store than the local McD's, including the drive-thru. So, why haven't I heard about the potential 10's of thousands of injuries from the convenience stores, and other chains in the United States?! Maybe, just maybe, it's because their coffee is safer???
As impressive as a billion sounds, it's partly due to the number of McD's franchises (over 30,000). McD's still only accounts for a fraction of the total cups of coffee purchased.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If you or I had spilled that in our laps, we'd have been out of the car screaming before you could say damn! But, because she was old and feeble, she ended up sitting in a puddle of scalding coffee for way too long. McDonalds fault, I know. :roll:

It takes only a few seconds, and you don't have to be in a puddle of it for all of those seconds. Have you never been burned by anything hot before? Getting out of the seat would take, what, two of them? Spill the rest of the coffee on the floor, unbuckle, open door, step out, drop drawers and/or run around for air cooling.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
STATISTICS edited for clarity and reposted

Those of you quoting the 1 in a million statistics... (or whatever it is) Those statistics are somewhat meaningless taken alone.
Let's see... as far as I can remember, while sober I've never spilled a beverage on myself. At least not of a sufficient quantity to have to change my clothes. This is probably excluding childhood when such accidents might occur. That's probably 100,000 drinks. So, lets say I spilled one of those drinks instead. Then, we have a rate of 1 in 100,000 drinks is spilled. I have no idea what the actual rate of spilling a drink in one's lap is.
So, I'm estimating the rate at which someone spills a drink on themselves, regardless of the type of drink, is about 1 in 100,000. (I can't see it being higher than 1 in 10,000 - that would mean that on the average, someone in my high school's cafeteria would spill a drink all over themselves about once every 2 weeks. Something that I haven't observed or heard of in 5 years. I also can't see it being lower than 1 in a million) That means, one out of every 100,000 cups of McDonald's coffee is spilled in someone's lap.(an estimate.. have a better estimate? Please post it) Thus, using the 1 in a million cups causes 3rd degree burns:

1 out of every 10 McD's coffees spilled on a person causes 3rd degree burns.
That sounds a little more impressive. I just wish more people understood statistics to the point they think they understand statistics. Stats are probably the most mis-used math there is.

But how many spill it on their laps? I'm clumsy, spill stuff al the time...very rarely on my lap. You generally have to work at it (like having it between your legs). I would seriously doubt 1/10. Spilling over the dash, spilling on a table, on the side of your leg, on your arm, all much easier feats than your inner thighs and groin.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Ness

Last I checked, she spilled the coffee on accident.

You can drink Drano by accident

And you are going to claim that you "on accident" mistook the drano under the sink for the milk in the fridge? Sure thing.

A warning is on the label for a reason

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Ness

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Ness

Last I checked, she spilled the coffee on accident.

You can drink Drano by accident

And you are going to claim that you "on accident" mistook the drano under the sink for the milk in the fridge? Sure thing.

A warning is on the label for a reason

Umm... I'm missing your point.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Ornery
If you or I had spilled that in our laps, we'd have been out of the car screaming before you could say damn! But, because she was old and feeble, she ended up sitting in a puddle of scalding coffee for way too long. McDonalds fault, I know. :roll:

It takes only a few seconds, and you don't have to be in a puddle of it for all of those seconds. Have you never been burned by anything hot before? Getting out of the seat would take, what, two of them? Spill the rest of the coffee on the floor, unbuckle, open door, step out, drop drawers and/or run around for air cooling.

Put yourself in the old lady's seat. The coffee is tipping into your lap, and you didn't manage to stop it. The first thing you do is gasp, and mutter an obscenity. As you do this you instinctively arch your back while pushing against the floorboard with your feet. You'll probably use your arms to press against the armrests on each side. You won't be able to get too high, because of the seatbelt, but enough so you aren't swimming in the stew. If nothing else, you squish the seat down to keep it off your pants, let alone your privates. Once you undo the belt, you jump out of the car bitching at your own stupidity, and squawk about your ruined pants and steaming crotch. Probably no need to remove them, because they'll already be cooled down substantially.

Old Stella didn't have the reflexes, or strength to keep from sitting in the hot muck. She was probably slow to react, and pitiful in her attempt to get above the seat in any fashion.

Anyway...

The Specialty Coffee Association of America put coffee safety on its agenda for discussion. A spokesperson for the National Coffee Association said that McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. A spokesman for Mr. Coffee, the coffee-machine maker, said that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low. Some customers like it hotter. A coffee connoisseur who imported and wholesaled coffee said that 175 degrees is probably the optimum temperature for coffee because that's when aromatics are being released. McDonald's continues to say that it is serving its coffee the way customers like it. As one writer noted, the temperature of McDonald's coffee helps to explain why it sells a billion cups a year. - Text

Unfit for human consumption? :roll:

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Like I said before, OJ walked, so I should have all the faith in the world in our legal system, right? :roll:

The OJ trial was a farce/ratings ploy.

The trial "transcripts" for each day of the trial were on a web/ftp site called pathfinder.com during the trial. These transcripts even included gestures and facial expressions to be made by all the actors in the trial. Each page of the script had an NBC logo at the top of the page.

Often they goofed up, and a transcript for the next day would be posted between 12 and 24 hours BEFORE that day's "trial" was on "LIVE" TV, if you knew how to edit the URL to be for the next day.

We used to print these "transcripts" up in the UCF computer lab and read them aloud in the commons where people were watching the trial on TV, BEFORE the lines were read on "LIVE" TV.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I'd like to hear the opinions of actual lawyers here, and if possible I'd love to read the arguments used by each side in the case before making a final decision.

I'm a lawyer, and my thoughts on this subject are as follows:

- People here, and in the world in general, are disgracefully mean-spirited about this particular case. Whether or not you think McDonald's should have been found liable in this case, this woman is not a "bitch," nor is she stupid, just because she was badly burned by near-boiling coffee. She suffered horrible injuries, and this is not primarily her fault (and I don't care if YOU would have jumped up out of the car more quickly than she did). She is not a villian.

- McDonald's coffee is dreadful. IMO the only reason they ever served it at such a diabolically hot temperature to begin with is that they wanted to mask the flavor of their cheap, low-grade coffee.

- It was irresponsible and stupid for them ever to sell coffee at 180-190 degrees. This is much hotter than anyone could comfortably drink, and 40-60 degrees hotter than home-brewed coffee. A beverage at that temperature effectively becomes a weapon, and there is simply no good reason for it.

I just finished some coffee. Roasted it Saturday. Just as the water started boiling in the pot, which is right around 205F (not a rolling boil or anything, cools a bit as it is poured) I take it out and into the press it goes. I have measured it, and when it's ready and goes into the first mug, it's 185F. Exactly, every time. It hits a certain color when it cools to that, appearing much thicker. By the time it is 160F (maybe 2 minutes on the counter in a mug), it's ready for drinking. A decent boil makes it taste like distilled water a bit, and not getting it to even bubbling (<190F or so) doesn't get the right flavor out.
Also, the big bunns make great drip coffee. For $180, they should, and they keep the water around 195F, I guess (it's 180F in the pot once it is done brewing), as it has a thermostat but no way to read temps w/o having the thing apart.

Coffee is drinkable by around 160F, in small sips, and gulpable by 145F.

I'm not going to say that their coffee is good, but getting those temps right, even in big drip makers, will make it better than colder-brewing and colder-warming places serving [otherwise equally terrible] coffee.

- It was even more stupid to sell coffee out of a drive-thru at temperatures like this, especially since they hand out sugar and creamer separately, requiring the purchaser to remove the lid while seated in a car.

Actually, the stupid thing is using those super-thin, flexible cups. Coffee and tea are served in mugs for good reason--you can handle them, with no cover, with one hand! Even Starbucks uses stiff cups and paper cupholders that stiffen it more.

- 700 formal complaints/lawsuits over coffee burns is a huge number, even if they had sold a trillion cups of coffee during this timeframe. The raw percentage isn't the issue IMO - it's the actual number of complaints. It is hard to deny that they were aware this was a problem if 700 people complained, and they could have and should have taken reasonable measures (such as, oh, NOT serving their coffee at near-boiling temperatures) to alleviate the concern.

Not to mention how many people spilled it as such and did not file complaints. I think this woman was also at fault, but McDs were, as well.

- This woman was not looking to be enriched by this case - she only sued because McDonald's elected not to settle for her medical bills - they rolled the dice and took their chances.

What troubles me most about this case is that it is so often viewed as an example of what people perceive as an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. In reality, juries are NOT generally going around handing out large cash awards like candy, and I don't see this as a frivolous lawsuit.

Can't disagree there.

 

[Cerb]

Coffee should be brewed at just over 200F, so if it's fresh, by God, it should be that hot. If it was sitting for awhile, it should have been no more than maybe 170 (trust me, when you spill it on you, there's a huge difference 🙂).

Personally, I think McDs should have done some legal wrangling (make sure it isn't frivelous(sp)), and then paid the medical costs in full. Instead, they did the good old corporate thing, and got the news on it in so doing. After all, it a) costs money for lawyers on both sides, b) costs you bad publicity, and c) by up and doing that, they might have some really good publicity. Hell, add some free meals in there.
She was stupid, but she did suffer, and there are always reporters at the ready.
JMHO. I bet they could pay the bills for the whole 700 and not see an impact in their bottom line.

But...you do not but coffee between your legs. That's why there's a dash board. If it is steaming, you don't but it near antyhing close than your arms. Anyone who likes coffee or does a lot of cooking in general knows this from painful experience, or getting very close to have some painful experience.
I have a scar just above my belly button. It didn't even stop hurting for voer six months. I guess I should sue Bertolli and Pillsbury for making a roux w/o wearing a shirt.

Originally posted by: NessI believe there were some doctors that testified that the temperature of their coffee wasn't even fit for the human mouth to withstand, let alone have spilled on them.

Yes, but once it's in that cup, or a mug, evaporation cools it to drinking temp in less than five minutes (maybe 15 with a top on for driving with it). Either that or my mouth is able to withstand extreme temperatures, which I doubt.

 

[Cerb]

nm

 

[Ness]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Ornery
If you or I had spilled that in our laps, we'd have been out of the car screaming before you could say damn! But, because she was old and feeble, she ended up sitting in a puddle of scalding coffee for way too long. McDonalds fault, I know. :roll:

It takes only a few seconds, and you don't have to be in a puddle of it for all of those seconds. Have you never been burned by anything hot before? Getting out of the seat would take, what, two of them? Spill the rest of the coffee on the floor, unbuckle, open door, step out, drop drawers and/or run around for air cooling.

Put yourself in the old lady's seat. The coffee is tipping into your lap, and you didn't manage to stop it. The first thing you do is gasp, and mutter an obscenity. As you do this you instinctively arch your back while pushing against the floorboard with your feet. You'll probably use your arms to press against the armrests on each side. You won't be able to get too high, because of the seatbelt, but enough so you aren't swimming in the stew. If nothing else, you squish the seat down to keep it off your pants, let alone your privates. Once you undo the belt, you jump out of the car bitching at your own stupidity, and squawk about your ruined pants and steaming crotch. Probably no need to remove them, because they'll already be cooled down substantially.

Old Stella didn't have the reflexes, or strength to keep from sitting in the hot muck. She was probably slow to react, and pitiful in her attempt to get above the seat in any fashion.

Anyway...

The Specialty Coffee Association of America put coffee safety on its agenda for discussion. A spokesperson for the National Coffee Association said that McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. A spokesman for Mr. Coffee, the coffee-machine maker, said that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low. Some customers like it hotter. A coffee connoisseur who imported and wholesaled coffee said that 175 degrees is probably the optimum temperature for coffee because that's when aromatics are being released. McDonald's continues to say that it is serving its coffee the way customers like it. As one writer noted, the temperature of McDonald's coffee helps to explain why it sells a billion cups a year. - Text

Unfit for human consumption? :roll:

So you're saying that the third degree burns were not real?

When you sip coffee, it is taken in at such small amounts that it cools incredibly fast. In a large amount the coffee is dangerous because it CANNOT cool as fast.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Jhill
Unless it gave her 3rd degree burns over 75% of her body, no way in HELL does she deserve 2.7 million dollars.

With 3rd degree burns at 75% percent of the body, her chances to survival are slim (3rd degree burns affect the muscular tissue, not only the skin. For your information, 1st degree burns are similar to the ones you can get tanning, 2nd degree are associated with formation of liquid bags under the skin, and 4th degree are the kind that reach the bones.
But how BIG are those coffees to produce such extensive damage? Freaking huge, 1-liter coffee cans :shocked:

Calin