Starbucks customer sues for $114 million

[getbush]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Nobody is forcing you to buy a car with crappy seatbelts.

and you can't tell if a seatbelt is crappy or not. what if every car the maker sent the government and the insurance crash testers a ringer? (and, of course, those tests can be flawed and not directly applicable if you're not the size of a crash test dummy) then you'd have no way to protect yourself, except for a lawsuit afterward.

I wasn't going to bother responding. He isn't capable of producing a logical argument, or grasping the concept behind others' arguments.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Common sense tells me that 160 degrees is a fair temperature to serve coffee. You still would have to stare at it for a while and let it cool down before it's drinkable. Common sense tells me there is no reason to hand someone a 180-190 degree cup of coffee when research shows it is intended for immediate consumption the car. Other restaurants were surveyed and the closest was 20 degrees less than McDonald's.

I PMed amused last night and told him I would agree to disagree. He said cool, but then made two more comments.

People cannot be totally personally responsible. It is not possible. If I run into you on the sidewalk at night in a bad part of town, and I shoot you in the face, are your personally responsible for your death? I mean come on, everybody knows that the area is a bad place to be at night. Murders have happened there and were in the news. I guess you should've known better huh? I fill a prescription for a person who has an allergy to that medication listed in their profile. They take it and are severly injured or die. Is the patient solely responsible? They know what they are allergic to right? You know it doesn't go down like that.

My point is there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Where to draw the line is the question. People will inevitably put the line in different places, and that's where disagreement arises. I feel that there is no reason to hand over coffee at 180-190 degrees. It's an an unacceptable and useless risk in my opinion. It is undrinkable at that temperature. Other restaurants in the area were surveyed and none came closer than 20 degrees to McDs - negligence.

Agree to disagree so long as you get the last word, right? :rioll;

Dude, you have no idea what common sense is. Coffee temp has NOTHING to do with immediate drinkability and everything to do with flavor. I have repeatedly shown you this from coffee experts. EVERYONE knows coffee is too hot to drink when you get it. Everyone knows good food is too hot to eat when you get it.

What next, are we going to sue for pizza burns on the roof of one's mouth?

The line is here: When a person accepts a cup of coffee, they accept the risk that said coffee can burn them. It's that easy. It's that simple. If you mishandle a cup of coffee you're going to hurt yourself. If coffee scares you so fscking bad, don't order it.

And Bullsh!t. Like I said coffee houses around the world, including Starbucks, still sell their coffee at 180-190 degrees. The ideal temp for flavor and heat retention. You have fallen for another Ambulance Chaser trick: Submit only that data which helps your case.

How many Starbucks are on that list they "surveyed?" The funniest part was you believed it.

 

[getbush]

Trust me people are prescribed medications that they are allergic to every day in this country.

So I guess just sit in your room and cry if you feel as though you can't do anything. I don't know what else to say about that.

 

[getbush]

Amused, you posted twice after our PM exchange. The first one I let go it was fine. Then you posted again. So don't talk to me about the last word.

http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/techprogram/abstracts/3583.htm

They above link is a scientific survey of preferred coffee temps. 160 and 140 are equal to each other and on top. So if 140 is acceptable, why crank it to 190 and assume uneccessary risk? You keep saying off the top of your head that starbucks is at 180-190 but you will see in my link that 168 was the average they found.

SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.

Imagine that, the preferred temp was found to be below the expected temp. Maybe b/c people were burning the hell out of their tongue at the temp they thought they wanted it. Maybe not. That's pure conjecture on my part

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: getbush
Trust me people are prescribed medications that they are allergic to every day in this country.

So I guess just sit in your room and cry if you feel as though you can't do anything. I don't know what else to say about that.

Ah, mature, witty, AND able to see multiple points of view. Really, there's no point in this thread going on any further.

 

[getbush]

I think you know better than to think you can't do anything in this country. It was a petty defeatist comment and I feel like you didn't even truly mean it. I mean, can't do anything? Go fly a kite (after filing the proper forms with the FAA of course).

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Nobody is forcing you to buy a car with crappy seatbelts.

and you can't tell if a seatbelt is crappy or not. what if every car the maker sent the government and the insurance crash testers a ringer? (and, of course, those tests can be flawed and not directly applicable if you're not the size of a crash test dummy) then you'd have no way to protect yourself, except for a lawsuit afterward.

Because independant research companies don't test that? Because it won't be all over the media once word gets out?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: getbush
Blanco, if you ever come up with a rational argument I may consider responding - but probably not. Go have a few beers and get behind the wheel of a car. I know it's your favorite pastime.

Translation: Blanco came up with an extremely rational argument that I can't defend, so I'm going to personally attack him and tell him he didn't come up with anything rational that's worth a respond, thus getting me off the hook in actually having to think.

 

[getbush]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: getbush
Blanco, if you ever come up with a rational argument I may consider responding - but probably not. Go have a few beers and get behind the wheel of a car. I know it's your favorite pastime.

Translation: Blanco came up with an extremely rational argument that I can't defend, so I'm going to personally attack him and tell him he didn't come up with anything rational that's worth a respond, thus getting me off the hook in actually having to think.

You can't even put together a complete thought. Why would I want to defend your "argument"? You make no sense.

edit: I bolded the key word for you blanco to help you notice the error of your thinking.

By the way, seat restraint systems are regulated by the govermnment, and companies must prove compliance. Here is the relevant section of code in case you are wondering. Text which can be found here There is a reason we have strict government regulation of this, and it certainly isn't because personal responsibility is the unfailing law of the land.
I prefer the current system to your suggestion of letting citizens be the crash test dummies and waiting for their deaths to hit the media before we know not to buy a certain car.

When a bullet works as designed and shoots someone through the foot, the ammunition manufacturer did not act negligently.
When a company continues to serve coffee at a temperature 20-30 degrees above standard, a temperature that exponentially increase danger of injury after already receiving 700 reports of injuries, 1 every 5 days over 10 years, at a tempearture that exponentially increases danger of injury, that is negligence.

It sounds like you are arguing that is common and acceptable for a cup of coffee handed into a car to be handled with an equal level of care as a loaded firearm. Does that seem logical to you?

I don't even think you understand the concepts and arguments of either side. At least Amused and jagec understand either side and come up with something to defend their own position. Your posts are borderline gibberish, and we are all worse off for reading them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Amused, you posted twice after our PM exchange. The first one I let go it was fine. Then you posted again. So don't talk to me about the last word.

http://ift.confex.com/ift/99annual/techprogram/abstracts/3583.htm

They above link is a scientific survey of preferred coffee temps. 160 and 140 are equal to each other and on top. So if 140 is acceptable, why crank it to 190 and assume uneccessary risk? You keep saying off the top of your head that starbucks is at 180-190 but you will see in my link that 168 was the average they found.

SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.

Imagine that, the preferred temp was found to be below the expected temp. Maybe b/c people were burning the hell out of their tongue at the temp they thought they wanted it. Maybe not. That's pure conjecture on my part

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Read this again:

SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.

Serving temps are high so they are acceptable by the time they are finally used by the customer. They are also recommended to be high because keeping it at or near brewing temps keeps the flavor the freshest.

Too hot? The customer can wait a little and have perfect coffee. Too cold? Customer is screwed and unhappy.

And THIS:

consumers tasted black coffees at six different temperatures

Creamer and sugar will cool coffee considerably. By at least 20 degrees. More if the creamer is refrigerated. This has been explained to you over and over again.

The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F

168 was the average DRINKING (sot serving) temp AFTER the coffee had been poured into a cold cup and placed on a cold stainless steel counter for a few minutes. Suggesting a holding temp closer to 180 than 160. What temp was Liebeck's coffee estimated to be when she spilled it? 170 degrees.

You, in fact, just owned yourself. In fact, three times in a single post.

 

[getbush]

You are handily ignoring that they also found 140 to be equally as acceptable as 160. Using your 20 degree drop that you pull from thin air, coffee would need to be served at 160. Not 180-190. 160 is exponentially less likely to cause 3rd degree burns than 180.

too hot and the customer can wind up in the hospital for a week - too cold and the customer is unhappy

McDonald's coffee doesn't sit on a counter for a few minutes. Put -> cup -> car very quickly and as shown by their own research, for immediate consumption.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
You are handily ignoring that they also found 140 to be equally as acceptable as 160. Using your 20 degree drop that you pull from thin air, coffee would need to be served at 160. Not 180-190. 160 is exponentially less likely to cause 3rd degree burns than 180.

too hot and the customer can wind up in the hospital for a week - too cold and the customer is unhappy

McDonald's coffee doesn't sit on a counter for a few minutes. Put -> cup -> car very quickly and as shown by their own research, for immediate consumption.

Dude, just give it up. Even the sources YOU use argue in MY favor, not yours.

140 was acceptable for people who drink it black. Again, reading comprehension is your friend. However, 168 was the average drinking temp.

Have you been to a McDonald's lately? Your coffee sits for a couple minutes before it gets to you. It is cooled by pouring it into a cold cup. It's cooled even further by creamer and sugar.

You keep doubting my assertion that cold creamer and sugar cools a cup of coffee considerably. (denying the obvious, no less) Why not try it for yourself?

Heat some liquid to 180. Pour it into a cold cup and re-take the temp. Then add 3 cold creamers and 2 sugars to it and take the temp again.

I guarantee it will lose at LEAST 25 degrees.

And the funniest part? You confused serving temp with drinking temp and tried to claim it proved your case... when in fact it proved mine.

Now please, go away. You've made about as big a fool of yourself as one man can.

 

[getbush]

140 is acceptable for people who drink it period. If you serve it at 160 and you add creamer to drop it to 140, your at acceptable temperature.

Why would 140 degree black coffee be different from 140 creamered coffee? 168 was simply the average drinking temp, which is almost irrelevant. They only keep that number so they can interperate the averge serving temp. This was a study, the people tried as soon as they could get it so they could sample all temp ranges. The relevant point is that 140 came out top. Which means 180-190 ridiculousness is not called for. Get the people 160 coffee quicker. Don't hand it out at 190 b/c sometimes it sits, and sometimes it doesn't.

Bottom line there, 140 came out on top, why add increased burn risk?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
140 is acceptable for people who drink it period. If you serve it at 160 and you add creamer to drop it to 140, your at acceptable temperature.

Why would 140 degree black coffee be different from 140 creamered coffee? 168 was simply the average drinking temp, which is almost irrelevant. They only keep that number so they can interperate the averge serving temp. This was a study, the people tried as soon as they could get it so they could sample all temp ranges. The relevant point is that 140 came out top. Which means 180-190 ridiculousness is not called for. Get the people 160 coffee quicker. Don't hand it out at 190 b/c sometimes it sits, and sometimes it doesn't.

Bottom line there, 140 came out on top, why add increased burn risk?

Why do you continue to embarrass yourself? 160-170 was the preferred drinking temp range. Preferred by the greatest number of people. The range that pleases the most people. Your own source says this. To achieve that drinking temp holding temps should be 180-190. It's really very simple.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Coffee houses hold coffee at 180-190 because that's what the most people want. They don't do it out of any kind of malicious hatred of old ladies. Hell, to hold it cooler would be cheaper. They do it because that's the HOLDING temp that the broadest range of people prefer. 180-190 holding temp means an average drinking temp of 160-170.

At any rate, open two coffee houses side by side and have one hold their coffee at 140, the other at 180. See who fails first.

Coffee sellers are not stupid. They hold it at that temp because it's what sells. It's what coffee connoisseurs like.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[BigJ]

I like coffee.

 

[Raduque]

I drink my coffee straight black at 355 degrees.... celcius.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: getbush
Blanco, if you ever come up with a rational argument I may consider responding - but probably not. Go have a few beers and get behind the wheel of a car. I know it's your favorite pastime.

Translation: Blanco came up with an extremely rational argument that I can't defend, so I'm going to personally attack him and tell him he didn't come up with anything rational that's worth a respond, thus getting me off the hook in actually having to think.

You can't even put together a complete thought. Why would I want to defend your "argument"? You make no sense.

edit: I bolded the key word for you blanco to help you notice the error of your thinking.

By the way, seat restraint systems are regulated by the govermnment, and companies must prove compliance. Here is the relevant section of code in case you are wondering. Text which can be found here There is a reason we have strict government regulation of this, and it certainly isn't because personal responsibility is the unfailing law of the land.
I prefer the current system to your suggestion of letting citizens be the crash test dummies and waiting for their deaths to hit the media before we know not to buy a certain car.

When a bullet works as designed and shoots someone through the foot, the ammunition manufacturer did not act negligently.
When a company continues to serve coffee at a temperature 20-30 degrees above standard, a temperature that exponentially increase danger of injury after already receiving 700 reports of injuries, 1 every 5 days over 10 years, at a tempearture that exponentially increases danger of injury, that is negligence.

It sounds like you are arguing that is common and acceptable for a cup of coffee handed into a car to be handled with an equal level of care as a loaded firearm. Does that seem logical to you?

I don't even think you understand the concepts and arguments of either side. At least Amused and jagec understand either side and come up with something to defend their own position. Your posts are borderline gibberish, and we are all worse off for reading them.

My thoughts are very much complete.

1. Nobody forces people to buy cars with crappy seatbelts.
2. Nobody forces people to buy hot coffee. If you're afraid the coffee is hot, you can always ask. Also, McDonalds sells the coffee to drink, not to spill into your lap. What if somebody spilled soup at a restaurant and then slipped and fell? Could they sue for the soup being too slippery when it could have been prepared less slippery? No, because the soup wasn't meant to be on the floor. Coffee isn't meant to be on anybody's lap either.
3. If 3rd degree burns are the result of spilling coffee, then yes, coffee should be handled at the same carefulness as a gun.
4. I win.
5. I'm also a genius. Probably not though.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: getbush
Show me where the coffee in the case was 170. You simply can't.

You debunked the whole case in one ****** post? You should contact McDonald's legal department about a job ASAP.

So coffee people say serve it at 180-190 for best aroma and flavor? Ask any medical professional if they reccomend ingesting a 190 degree liquid. Which is more important? Health? Or the aroma and flavor of a beverage that smells and tatste bad anyway? If the national kool-aid association tells you to drink your kool-aid at 211 degrees are you going to mindlessly comply?

Show me documented proof where McDonald's at any point agreed to pay $20k. The only point in time that may have occurred is after the jury ver

dict came in for $2.7 mil. It never happened though. They were ignorant to the end, denying a 225,000 offer just before the verdict.

I think serving it at 160 is fine. That seems to be where people want it. 190 is a lot more than 160. 190 will cause those burns in 7 seconds. 160 coffee will take 10 times as long. Other restaurants were sampled and the highest was 20 degrees less than McDs at 170, with most around 160.

fact: McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

That is a fact. That is documented testimony. You haven't given a single verifiable fact other than, the coffee people say 190 is good.

Please direct me to subsequent court cases where someone required hospitalization and surgery following injury from coffee burns. Thank you.

Oh and answer this very simple question. Would you, right now, willingly drink, and I mean really drink, a 190 degree cup of coffee?

LOL it's called "let the coffee cool until it's cool enough to drink." If these people are getting hurt because they are too stupid to realize that you get burned from hot things then they deserve to die and prevent their genes from spreading. I can't wait until some retard sues electric companies for getting electrocuted because they stick their finger in a socket. These people are just looking for ways to get easy money.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: getbush
Common sense tells me that 160 degrees is a fair temperature to serve coffee. You still would have to stare at it for a while and let it cool down before it's drinkable. Common sense tells me there is no reason to hand someone a 180-190 degree cup of coffee when research shows it is intended for immediate consumption the car. Other restaurants were surveyed and the closest was 20 degrees less than McDonald's.

I PMed amused last night and told him I would agree to disagree. He said cool, but then made two more comments.

People cannot be totally personally responsible. It is not possible. If I run into you on the sidewalk at night in a bad part of town, and I shoot you in the face, are your personally responsible for your death? I mean come on, everybody knows that the area is a bad place to be at night. Murders have happened there and were in the news. I guess you should've known better huh? I fill a prescription for a person who has an allergy to that medication listed in their profile. They take it and are severly injured or die. Is the patient solely responsible? They know what they are allergic to right? You know it doesn't go down like that.

My point is there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Where to draw the line is the question. People will inevitably put the line in different places, and that's where disagreement arises. I feel that there is no reason to hand over coffee at 180-190 degrees. It's an an unacceptable and useless risk in my opinion. It is undrinkable at that temperature. Other restaurants in the area were surveyed and none came closer than 20 degrees to McDs - negligence.

McDonald's admitted customers don't know that coffee at that temperature can cause 3rd degree burns. Everyone in teh world is a not a thermodynamicist or physiologist. Do you really believe a person would handle a cup of coffee every morning, knowing that if its 190 contents were spilled in there lap, they would be burned to the point of requiring a hospital stay and possibly surgery? No, that is not acceptable risk. If it were 160, the risk of an injury like that goes down exponentially. And it's still too hot to drink. So why raise the danger exponentially, with no added benefit. Oh I forgot, the coffee people said it smells better at that temperature.

Hmmm I guess they should have a pot of coffee for the commuter and a separate pot for people who eat in the restaurant. That would be common sense huh? But...wait...someone might sue for discrimmination.