The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.

Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.

At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.

You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.


You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.

Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.

At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.

You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.


You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.

Um, no. I was mistaken on a point about case history. This does nothing to damage ANY part of my argument on self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits.

Nice try, but weak sauce.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.

Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.

At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.

You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.


You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.

Um, no. I was mistaken on a point about case history. This does nothing to damage ANY part of my argument on self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits.

Nice try, but weak sauce.

Actually, the important part was that you shifted the argument from being about that case, to being about other ones.

The fact that you repeatedly insisted on 'denied!' was amusing, but you're right, it had no more bearing on the truth of the matter than the poster who used 'mute' instead of 'moot'.

How dumb you think I am, and how stubborn I think you are has no bearing on the actual argument.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.

Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.

At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.

You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.


You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.

Um, no. I was mistaken on a point about case history. This does nothing to damage ANY part of my argument on self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits.

Nice try, but weak sauce.

Actually, the important part was that you shifted the argument from being about that case, to being about other ones.

The fact that you repeatedly insisted on 'denied!' was amusing, but you're right, it had no more bearing on the truth of the matter than the poster who used 'mute' instead of 'moot'.

How dumb you think I am, and how stubborn I think you are has no bearing on the actual argument.

Oh just stop, Charlie. Your argument fell apart long ago when you tried to claim McD's had no right to sell their coffee at the RECOMMENDED temps because their coffee was bad in your opinion. This after trying to change your argument every time I destroyed your previous argiment. Now you are trying to jump in when you think I've been owned. Problem is, I was mistaken on a minor point of case history. My entire argument did not rest on that... I had just destroyed every other point but that one and the debate boiled down to it. The rest of my arguments stand.

Anyhow, it's 75 and sunny here today. And a day out on my Harley sounds infinitely better than debating self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits. I know you all will be devastated by my absence, but a man's gotta ride.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.

Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.

At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.

You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.


You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.

Um, no. I was mistaken on a point about case history. This does nothing to damage ANY part of my argument on self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits.

Nice try, but weak sauce.

Actually, the important part was that you shifted the argument from being about that case, to being about other ones.

The fact that you repeatedly insisted on 'denied!' was amusing, but you're right, it had no more bearing on the truth of the matter than the poster who used 'mute' instead of 'moot'.

How dumb you think I am, and how stubborn I think you are has no bearing on the actual argument.

Oh just stop, Charlie. Your argument fell apart long ago when you tried to claim McD's had no right to sell their coffee at the RECOMMENDED temps because their coffee was bad in your opinion. This after trying to change your argument every time I destroyed your previous argiment. Now you are trying to jump in when you think I've been owned. Problem is, I was mistaken on a minor point of case history. My entire argument did not rest on that... I had just destroyed every other point but that one and the debate boiled down to it. The rest of my arguments stand.

Anyhow, it's 75 and sunny here today. And a day out on my Harley sounds infinitely better than debating self inflicted coffee injury lawsuits. I know you all will be devastated by my absence, but a man's gotta ride.

I actually rejoined because SampSon couldn't resist making another pass at joining the badgering.

My argument wasn't about 'rights' it was about how stupid it is to argue from quality when you aren't providing quality, and it wasn't 'changing my argument', it was a specific response to a specific issue you raised. It also doesn't change the results that showed McDonald's coffee was being served substantially hottr than the competition. If you think this is flawed, attack the method of measurement.

You can't destroy an argument by declaring that you have done so - this doesn't fly in debate, or courts, or anywhere else, though badgering is a good way to convince people who already agree with you that you are 'winning'.

BTW Enjoy your ride, it was nice here a few days ago, but now it's just foggy

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: preslove

For the last time, you idiots, if the coffee had been 140 degrees, instead of the insanely high 180 degrees, the woman would not have gone to the hospital. She would have been lightly burned, but not severely. There is a huge differnce between "oh crap my lap is hot and wet, this sucks," and "my skin is melting! Take me to the hospital," burning. There is NO valid reason to have coffee sitting at 180 degrees. It is especially risky to do so when you are selling it at a place with a drive thru, because people are going to drink it in the car leading to inevitable spilling. At 140 degrees, this is painful, but damaging to one's health. At 180 degrees, it leads to 3rd degree burns and requires intensive medical attantion.

I can see your argument, but I disagree with it. I think that most everyone has had their say in this thread, and I'm bowing out. I respect your opinion, but I still disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.

 

[The Mailman]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: tagej
Pale Rider, they knew about the 'hazard'... duuuuuuh. Ya think spilling hot coffee on yourself could cause burns??

Uhh, did you fall off the short bus? Spilled drink is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is McDonald's KNOWINGLY gave the drink out and had 700 documented cases of where it burned people badly, INCLUDING BURNS SUFFERED BY CONSUMING THE COFFE FROM THE CUP AS IT WAS INTENDED WHEN SOLD. Hello? McFly?!

this is like someone dropping a knife on their foot and then suing that the knife was "knowingly too sharp"

DUHHHHH

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims of people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

That says it all right there folks. McDonalds knew about the problem well in advance and didn't try to fix it. They are at fault, even if she spilled the drink.

So personal resposibility means nothing? Hmm, I have this nice steaming hot cup of coffee that I'm going to set between my legs to drive off from the drive through.
Stupid people do stupid things. If this was a common occurance then this would happen to everyone that got coffee at McDonalds. 700 people in 10 years is not alot especially considering how much coffee McDonalds sells. I bet that that is less than 0.1% of the people that have bought coffee.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims of people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

That says it all right there folks. McDonalds knew about the problem well in advance and didn't try to fix it. They are at fault, even if she spilled the drink.

So personal resposibility means nothing? Hmm, I have this nice steaming hot cup of coffee that I'm going to set between my legs to drive off from the drive through.
Stupid people do stupid things. If this was a common occurance then this would happen to everyone that got coffee at McDonalds. 700 people in 10 years is not alot especially considering how much coffee McDonalds sells. I bet that that is less than 0.1% of the people that have bought coffee.

Read more of the thread. 700 injuries in 10 years with billions of cups served is an injury rate of 1 in 24 million. You stand a 5 times better chance of being hit by lightning.

It's a stupid irrelevant, and meaningless "fact" that, taken out of context, is supposed to make McDonald's look like they didn't care.

Fact: Coffee brewed, held and served at the IDEAL temp is a burn hazard. Yes, a 180 degree holding temp is the ideal by any coffee standard. Many products if MISHANDLED are a hazard.

The logic behind those who defend this lawsuit is this: Retail products cannot pose any hazard, because they may be mishandled by the consumer and cause injury. Their logic falls apart when one realizes that this would mean the banning of everything from sharp knives to bug spray.

 

[torpid]

Until I started drinking a lot of tea I thought that 185 was too hot and mcdonalds (and starbucks, dunkin donuts) was ridiculous for serving it that hot. However, I make a lot of tea now and heat the water to about 180 for green tea. I have spilled it on my hand or shirt more than a few times and it is nowhere near as hot as people are making it out to be. I could probably immerse my hand in 180 degree water for a few seconds without serious injury. Maybe one day when I'm bored I will do that. It would have to be quite bored though since I wouldn't want to make my tea in that water after immersing my filthy hand in it.

Now black tea, on the other hand, I heat to boiling and that WILL injure me if I touch it more than half a second. Maybe the magic number is 195, but I don't think 180 is that hot. What was the coffee actually at? Half the posts in this thread seem in disagreement. If it was 180-185 which also happens to be what I can find googling coffee temperature as the suggested temp, no big deal. If it were 195, that seems excessive to me.

I am guessing it's closer to 195 because I drink tea at 170-180 sometimes and it does not seriously scald me. However, black coffee at starbucks and certain other places are way too hot for me to drink.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: torpid
Until I started drinking a lot of tea I thought that 185 was too hot and mcdonalds (and starbucks, dunkin donuts) was ridiculous for serving it that hot. However, I make a lot of tea now and heat the water to about 180 for green tea. I have spilled it on my hand or shirt more than a few times and it is nowhere near as hot as people are making it out to be. I could probably immerse my hand in 180 degree water for a few seconds without serious injury. Maybe one day when I'm bored I will do that. It would have to be quite bored though since I wouldn't want to make my tea in that water after immersing my filthy hand in it.

Now black tea, on the other hand, I heat to boiling and that WILL injure me if I touch it more than half a second. Maybe the magic number is 195, but I don't think 180 is that hot. What was the coffee actually at? Half the posts in this thread seem in disagreement. If it was 180-185 which also happens to be what I can find googling coffee temperature as the suggested temp, no big deal. If it were 195, that seems excessive to me.

I am guessing it's closer to 195 because I drink tea at 170-180 sometimes and it does not seriously scald me. However, black coffee at starbucks and certain other places are way too hot for me to drink.

If you read coffee connoisseur sites there is actually a valid reason why coffee should be brewed at just over 200 degrees and held at 180 degrees. It provides the best flavor and aromatics.

At any rate, as one judge pointed out, coffee held at 180 degrees does not reach the customer at that temp. The act of pouring it into a cold cup cools it. The time to finish the transaction on a cold counter cools it, and the addition of cold cream and sugar stirred with a cold spoon cool it. After all that, the coffee is likely to be 140-150 degrees.

Hold coffee at 140 degrees as the nanny-staters and ambulance chasers would like, and the coffee would cool to 100 degrees or less after all that. FAR too cool to be good.

I know when I have coffee from a cheap coffee maker that holds the coffee at 130-140 degrees, the process it goes through when serving it and adding cream and sugar make it too cool, and I have to pop it in the microwave.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid
Until I started drinking a lot of tea I thought that 185 was too hot and mcdonalds (and starbucks, dunkin donuts) was ridiculous for serving it that hot. However, I make a lot of tea now and heat the water to about 180 for green tea. I have spilled it on my hand or shirt more than a few times and it is nowhere near as hot as people are making it out to be. I could probably immerse my hand in 180 degree water for a few seconds without serious injury. Maybe one day when I'm bored I will do that. It would have to be quite bored though since I wouldn't want to make my tea in that water after immersing my filthy hand in it.

Now black tea, on the other hand, I heat to boiling and that WILL injure me if I touch it more than half a second. Maybe the magic number is 195, but I don't think 180 is that hot. What was the coffee actually at? Half the posts in this thread seem in disagreement. If it was 180-185 which also happens to be what I can find googling coffee temperature as the suggested temp, no big deal. If it were 195, that seems excessive to me.

I am guessing it's closer to 195 because I drink tea at 170-180 sometimes and it does not seriously scald me. However, black coffee at starbucks and certain other places are way too hot for me to drink.

If you read coffee connoisseur sites there is actually a valid reason why coffee should be brewed at just over 200 degrees and held at 180 degrees. It provides the best flavor and aromatics.

At any rate, as one judge pointed out, coffee held at 180 degrees does not reach the customer at that temp. The act of pouring it into a cold cup cools it. The time to finish the transaction on a cold counter cools it, and the addition of cold cream and sugar stirred with a cold spoon cool it. After all that, the coffee is likely to be 140-150 degrees.

Hold coffee at 140 degrees as the nanny-staters and ambulance chasers would like, and the coffee would cool to 100 degrees or less after all that. FAR too cool to be good.

I know when I have coffee from a cheap coffee maker that holds the coffee at 130-140 degrees, the process it goes through when serving it and adding cream and sugar make it too cool, and I have to pop it in the microwave.

I agreed that sites recommend 180 and am not suggesting it should be lower. What I don't believe is that the coffee that causes my tongue to burn and be sore for hours at certain places is served at 180 or lower, when I drink tea at 170-180 degrees without such pain. I know my tea is that temperature because I literally measure it with a thermometer. Is there something about coffee that makes 180 degree coffee "feel" hotter than 180 degree tea?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: torpid

I agreed that sites recommend 180 and am not suggesting it should be lower. What I don't believe is that the coffee that causes my tongue to burn and be sore for hours at certain places is served at 180 or lower, when I drink tea at 170-180 degrees without such pain. I know my tea is that temperature because I literally measure it with a thermometer. Is there something about coffee that makes 180 degree coffee "feel" hotter than 180 degree tea?

I doubt it. Maybe your tea isn't really at 180 degrees? Or the act of pouring it a cold porcelain cup cools it more than pouring it in a paper cup?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid

I agreed that sites recommend 180 and am not suggesting it should be lower. What I don't believe is that the coffee that causes my tongue to burn and be sore for hours at certain places is served at 180 or lower, when I drink tea at 170-180 degrees without such pain. I know my tea is that temperature because I literally measure it with a thermometer. Is there something about coffee that makes 180 degree coffee "feel" hotter than 180 degree tea?

I doubt it. Maybe your tea isn't really at 180 degrees? Or the act of pouring it a cold porcelain cup cools it more than pouring it in a paper cup?

unless he's actually put a thermometer in his tea, i'd like to know how he measures its temperature

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid

I agreed that sites recommend 180 and am not suggesting it should be lower. What I don't believe is that the coffee that causes my tongue to burn and be sore for hours at certain places is served at 180 or lower, when I drink tea at 170-180 degrees without such pain. I know my tea is that temperature because I literally measure it with a thermometer. Is there something about coffee that makes 180 degree coffee "feel" hotter than 180 degree tea?

I doubt it. Maybe your tea isn't really at 180 degrees? Or the act of pouring it a cold porcelain cup cools it more than pouring it in a paper cup?

unless he's actually put a thermometer in his tea, i'd like to know how he measures its temperature

We ARE geeks here, are we not?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: torpid

I agreed that sites recommend 180 and am not suggesting it should be lower. What I don't believe is that the coffee that causes my tongue to burn and be sore for hours at certain places is served at 180 or lower, when I drink tea at 170-180 degrees without such pain. I know my tea is that temperature because I literally measure it with a thermometer. Is there something about coffee that makes 180 degree coffee "feel" hotter than 180 degree tea?

I doubt it. Maybe your tea isn't really at 180 degrees? Or the act of pouring it a cold porcelain cup cools it more than pouring it in a paper cup?

unless he's actually put a thermometer in his tea, i'd like to know how he measures its temperature

We ARE geeks here, are we not?

im an engineer, what's your excuse?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon


unless he's actually put a thermometer in his tea, i'd like to know how he measures its temperature

We ARE geeks here, are we not?

im an engineer, what's your excuse?

I'm just a geek who the state says has to measure the temp of everything he sells in his sandwich shops.

 

[torpid]

When I make green tea, I keep a thermometer in the hot pot so I don't overheat the water. So I know that I heat it to 180. It does lose some heat when it steeps for a few minutes, but like I said, I've spilled it numerous times and am willing to be I would not be injured more than perhaps minor redness if I immersed my hand in that water for a few seconds. If you overheat the water for green tea, then it scalds the leaves and makes the tea excessively bitter. Thus explaining why I rarely order green tea at coffee houses, because only on rare occasion do they properly moderate the temperature.

On occasion I've checked to see how hot the black tea is after 5 minutes of steeping at an initial temperature of 212, and it's around 180. I can drink it like I would normally drink any hot beverage. On the other hand, even sipping certain hot coffees causes mild burning. Those have got to be over 190. I just remembered that the starbucks machine at my former car dealer also was that hot (so hot it somewhat burned me after 2 creams and sugar).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: torpid
When I make green tea, I keep a thermometer in the hot pot so I don't overheat the water. So I know that I heat it to 180. It does lose some heat when it steeps for a few minutes, but like I said, I've spilled it numerous times and am willing to be I would not be injured more than perhaps minor redness if I immersed my hand in that water for a few seconds. If you overheat the water for green tea, then it scalds the leaves and makes the tea excessively bitter. Thus explaining why I rarely order green tea at coffee houses, because only on rare occasion do they properly moderate the temperature.

On occasion I've checked to see how hot the black tea is after 5 minutes of steeping at an initial temperature of 212, and it's around 180. I can drink it like I would normally drink any hot beverage. On the other hand, even sipping certain hot coffees causes mild burning. Those have got to be over 190. I just remembered that the starbucks machine at my former car dealer also was that hot (so hot it somewhat burned me after 2 creams and sugar).

Starbucks may have served it at the brewing temp which should be just over 200 degrees.

Or your thermometer could be off.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: The Mailman


this is like someone dropping a knife on their foot and then suing that the knife was "knowingly too sharp"

DUHHHHH

Actually if you want analogy using a knife it would go like this.

You purchase a set of butter knifes at the store. You go home and when you are opening them you slice half way through your little finger. Blood is gusihing you go to the hopital and receive 8 stitches.

You go home and try to figure out how this has happened. Upon close inspection the print on the packaging says "caution sharp"

Looking at the knife you find that the butter knife has a sharpened edge. You are surprised by this, why would it be this sharp? You take it to your neighbor and show it to him, relating your story. He is a surgeon and tells you that it is surgical quality steel that is honed the exact same way as scalpes that he would use in the O.R.

Baffled you discuss with him why on earth anyone would sell a product modifying it from something everyone is familar with. You debate how dangerous it was for them to do this and that you will try to do something about it.

In the end the reason I agree with this verdict is because safety should overide all other considerations when marketing a product to consumers. I think when they disguised the inherent risk factor they assumed at least some of the blame.

Sure you cam print "caution hot" on the lid, we all know what hot is. Now if the printed "caution so friggin hot it will burn your skin off, we aint joking" that would alert people that it is a higher degree of risk than they normally expect.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: The Mailman


this is like someone dropping a knife on their foot and then suing that the knife was "knowingly too sharp"

DUHHHHH

Actually if you want analogy using a knife it would go like this.

You purchase a set of butter knifes at the store. You go home and when you are opening them you slice half way through your little finger. Blood is gusihing you go to the hopital and receive 8 stitches.

You go home and try to figure out how this has happened. Upon close inspection the print on the packaging says "caution sharp"

Looking at the knife you find that the butter knife has a sharpened edge. You are surprised by this, why would it be this sharp? You take it to your neighbor and show it to him, relating your story. He is a surgeon and tells you that it is surgical quality steel that is homed the exact same as scalpes that he would use in the O.R.

Baffled you discuss with him why on earth anyone would sell a product modifying it from something everyone is familar with. You debate how dangerous it was for them to do this and that you will try to do something about it.

In the end the reason I agree with this verdict is because safety should overide all other considerations when marketing a product to consumers. I think when they disguised the inherent risk factor they assumed at least some of the blame.

Sure you cam print "caution hot" on the lid, we all know what hot is. Now if the printed "caution so friggin hot it will burn your skin off, we aint joking" that would alert people that it is a higher degree of risk than they normally expect.

Wow, all that wasted typing after the "expect" argument has been utterly destroyed. Most places hold their coffee at 180 degrees +/- a few degrees. The claim in the liebeck lawsuit that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry standard" is a complete and utter fabrication.

 

[torpid]

This requires further study. I will go purchase another audi just so I can test the temperature of their starbucks machine. Actually, now that I think of it, another instance of coffee too hot was a bite the hand that feeds you type scenario. While in line waiting to get into a movie theater during the local film fest, steep & brew parked some cars (ironically from the local european dealer which has starbucks machines in their office) with free coffee for movie patrons. That stuff was crazy hot as well. So in a month or so I should be able to test the temperature. This should be awesome, I can't wait to show up to a movie theater with a giant pointy metal thing.

 

[torpid]

Related question... anyone tried the "new" coffee at mcdonalds they are advertising as gourmet? If so is it any different in actuality?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: The Mailman


this is like someone dropping a knife on their foot and then suing that the knife was "knowingly too sharp"

DUHHHHH

Actually if you want analogy using a knife it would go like this.

You purchase a set of butter knifes at the store. You go home and when you are opening them you slice half way through your little finger. Blood is gusihing you go to the hopital and receive 8 stitches.

You go home and try to figure out how this has happened. Upon close inspection the print on the packaging says "caution sharp"

Looking at the knife you find that the butter knife has a sharpened edge. You are surprised by this, why would it be this sharp? You take it to your neighbor and show it to him, relating your story. He is a surgeon and tells you that it is surgical quality steel that is homed the exact same as scalpes that he would use in the O.R.

Baffled you discuss with him why on earth anyone would sell a product modifying it from something everyone is familar with. You debate how dangerous it was for them to do this and that you will try to do something about it.

In the end the reason I agree with this verdict is because safety should overide all other considerations when marketing a product to consumers. I think when they disguised the inherent risk factor they assumed at least some of the blame.

Sure you cam print "caution hot" on the lid, we all know what hot is. Now if the printed "caution so friggin hot it will burn your skin off, we aint joking" that would alert people that it is a higher degree of risk than they normally expect.

Wow, all that wasted typing after the "expect" argument has been utterly destroyed. Most places hold their coffee at 180 degrees +/- a few degrees. The claim in the liebeck lawsuit that 180 degrees is "40 degrees above the industry standard" is a complete and utter fabrication.

I thought maybe you would slip on one of your wet floors and bang your head and start seeing shades of gray. But since you still see only black and white apparently you had the signs up again today.

What is the temp that McD would have to serve their coffee at that you would than think it was to hot to serve to customers? 500 degrees? If their lips melted with the first sip, would you ever think someone other than a customer is to blame?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: The Mailman


this is like someone dropping a knife on their foot and then suing that the knife was "knowingly too sharp"

DUHHHHH

Actually if you want analogy using a knife it would go like this.

You purchase a set of butter knifes at the store. You go home and when you are opening them you slice half way through your little finger. Blood is gusihing you go to the hopital and receive 8 stitches.

You go home and try to figure out how this has happened. Upon close inspection the print on the packaging says "caution sharp"

Looking at the knife you find that the butter knife has a sharpened edge. You are surprised by this, why would it be this sharp? You take it to your neighbor and show it to him, relating your story. He is a surgeon and tells you that it is surgical quality steel that is honed the exact same way as scalpes that he would use in the O.R.

Baffled you discuss with him why on earth anyone would sell a product modifying it from something everyone is familar with. You debate how dangerous it was for them to do this and that you will try to do something about it.

In the end the reason I agree with this verdict is because safety should overide all other considerations when marketing a product to consumers. I think when they disguised the inherent risk factor they assumed at least some of the blame.

Sure you cam print "caution hot" on the lid, we all know what hot is. Now if the printed "caution so friggin hot it will burn your skin off, we aint joking" that would alert people that it is a higher degree of risk than they normally expect.

Wow, great analogy if McDonalds actually did serve the coffee at hotter than normal temps, but they didn't, so you just wasted a lot of time.....