Actually, the coffee was within "industry standard" brewing and serving temperatures as defined by the prestigious ANSI. I put 'industry standard' in quotes, because I reject there could ever be any such spurious notion as an "industry standard" serving temperature for a beverage that, despite being customarily adulterated according to wide-ranging individual preference, is universally known to be a "hot beverage" people tend to prefer at temperatures hot enough to burn. It would be like attempting to establish an "industry standard frosting thickness" on cake, or "industry standard chocolate chip count" in cookies, or "industry standard hamburger patty weight", or "industry standard ice cube count" for beverages served over ice, or an "industry standard sharpness" for edged cutting instruments.
Even if there were an industry standard, it still wouldn't change the fundamental issue of the woman dumping the coffee on her own damned self.
McDonalds serves over 500 million cups of coffee per year. It is not just conceivable but virtually guaranteed according to the dictates of probability that out of tens of millions of MD customers, a few thousand of them will be clumbsy idiots who could some how manage to severely injure themselves with a pillow.
If you served 500 million muffins per year, a few of those people will try to cram the entire muffin in their mouth and nearly choke to death.
It was the judge who reduced the jury's award.
McDonald's kept the coffee hot because that's the way survey after survey shows traveling customers prefer it.
Where is this planet that coffee drinkers like their coffee served luke warm?
200 degrees vs 170 degrees is a big deal when talking about the degree of burn. 170 is not lukewarm, but nice fallacy to say that.
People like this chump who take no responsibility for their actions or their life should just be thrown in a deep and dark pit somewhere. What a waste of space.
The difference is 2nd degree burns requiring partial thickness skin grafts and 3rd degree burns requiring full thickness skin grafts. What a difference!
I just made your entire existance as it pertains to this thread irrelevant.
And the verdict never remotely approached $320 million. The jury awarded punative damages of $2.9 million, later reduced by the judge.
Is it hard to walk with a big chip on your shoulder? No, you didn't make my existence in this thread irrelevant. BTW, you are wrong. Some second degree burns don't require grafting at all, whereas ALL 3rd degree burns do. Some 2nd degree burns don't even require professional medical attention.
Always going to post biased info eh? Your M.O.
Ah yes, the prestigious American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a "biased" source of information.
FACTS:
[*]ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986 defines optimal coffee holding temperature measured within 2 minutes after completion of the brewing cycle as between 170' F and 205' F. After standing for one hour, the beverage holding temperature should not be lower than 170' F.
[*]ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986 does not define an upper limit for holding and serving temperature for reasons of individual preference, but denotes that the coffee should never be subjected to temperatures exceeding 205' F to protect aroma and flavor, suggesting that the 205' F upper limit applies as well for holding and serving temperatures as brewing.
[*]170' F is a lower limit, not the median, optimal, desirable, or "target" holding and serving temperature, which would logically be somewhere between upper and lower limits defined above.
[*]McDonald's served its coffee between 180' F and 190' F
CONCLUSION:
McDonald's coffee was well within the range defined by "the industry standard."
Bye.
FACTS:
[*]ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986 defines optimal coffee holding temperature measured within 2 minutes after completion of the brewing cycle as between 170' F and 205' F. After standing for one hour, the beverage holding temperature should not be lower than 170' F.
[*]ANSI/AHAM CM-1-1986 does not define an upper limit for holding and serving temperature for reasons of individual preference, but denotes that the coffee should never be subjected to temperatures exceeding 205' F to protect aroma and flavor, suggesting that the 205' F upper limit applies as well for holding and serving temperatures as brewing.
[*]170' F is a lower limit, not the median, optimal, desirable, or "target" holding and serving temperature, which would logically be somewhere between upper and lower limits defined above.
[*]McDonald's served its coffee between 180' F and 190' F
CONCLUSION:
McDonald's coffee was well within the range defined by "the industry standard."
Bye.
In a survey of Restaurants in the Houston area, McDonald's was consisently the hottest of all restaurants.
For that case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings. Also for that case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald's quality assurance manager, who said "he was aware of this risk?and had no plans to turn down the heat," according to Mr. Morgan. McDonald's settled that case for $27,500.
I can link to where I got that quote from if you like. Regardless, just because someone is in the standards of the ANSI doesn't mean it absolves them of liablity. They had tons of prior complaints and they IGNORED them. Did you ever hazard to think that the ANSI standards could have been wrong, or that McDonald's was still exceeding them? 700 cases makes you think that McDonald's should have fixed something instead of people continually complaining or suing them.
McDonald's admitted that its coffee was not fit for consumption when it was sold at that high temperature.
Just like they may have had ANSI in their defense, many respected professors and burn experts did not agree. I'd bet you have experts on both sides of any argument.
Just like they may have had ANSI in their defense, many respected professors and burn experts did not agree. I'd bet you have experts on both sides of any argument.
Your argument has gone from being premised in McDonald's 'departure from the industry standard coffee temperatures' to some other Side-Show Bob distractions about 'norms within the immediate community' after being confronted with indisputable facts that McDonalds' coffee is well within industry standards.
How...umm...lawyerly of you.
That can only mean, then, that the 'norms within the community' were wrong and failed to comply with "industry standards", not McDonalds.
How...umm...lawyerly of you.
That can only mean, then, that the 'norms within the community' were wrong and failed to comply with "industry standards", not McDonalds.
Actually, the defense presented no experts who did not agree with the ANSI standard or McDonald's full compliance with it.
Hey, lets sue this guy for making us read his story, which took 5 minutes or so, for the equivalent of $1000 a munite worth of lifespan (ya never get it back ya know). I think we have a convincing case. His stupidity forced us to stop what we were doing and our natural human reaction was to rubberneck. 
It doesn't matter if they followed or didn't follow some industry standard. Ultimately they are responsible for themselves.
McDonald's admitted it was not fit for consumption. And yes, the defense did have university professors and burn experts say that the risk of harm is unacceptable.
I can tell you're not a lawyer, because performing to some industry standard does not absolve them of liability. Their product had been complained about 700 times in relation to burn.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Good coffee has to be brewed hot. 190F+ brewing temp is ideal for flavor and taste, minimum 170F holding. Prior to the lawsuit, McD's sold more cups of coffee that all other sellers in the world, combined. IMO, that lawsuit and the subsequent lowering of brewing temps in restaurants is what helped the espresso makers (Starbucks, etc.) to become so popular (because they brew with super-hot steam).
edit: back on topic, if this cable lawsuit is not enough to show people how bad our tort system has become, then nothing will.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter