The Truth about the McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

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?!

700 cases out of how many people who have purchased coffee throughout mcdonald's history? that's like saying every place needs elevators and escalators instead of stairs because 1 person in 5million trips and smashes their face

Actually thats 700 people that made a big enough stink about it that MD corporate thought it was important enough to record the incident.

There is no telling how many people were actually burned. It could be 701 or it could be 7 million. There is no way to know.

how many people burn themselves at home? i know i have

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
OMG... PLEASE go learn about coffee before you make an even bigger fool of yourself by pulling this crap out of your ass.

McDonald's has CHANGED THEIR COFFEE. I can't believe you're arguing about this. Do a fscking Google search about before yet again making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, they changed their coffee I'm well aware of this - I think that's why I said it.

What possible argument could there be for serving coffee you know is dangerous, when you're using crap for ingredients? I could serve 180 degree coffee made from ground up tires, and it won't make it good.

If McDonald's had been a coffee house, serving high quality coffee, maybe they would have been in a better position, but they weren't. But don't let anything factual get in your way, please.

First off, you need to stop changing your argument in mid stream when the evidence of your ignorance is posted in this thread for everyone to see.

You tried to imply McD's coffee was better because they lowered the temp. Stop acting like you didn't do that.

 

[OutHouse]

i feel left out , somebody plese acknowldege my post.

 

[zinfamous]

The lady was putting cream and sugar in her coffee when the accident happened. It said nothing about her attempting to drink it at that temperature. Do you think yoiu people could possibly consider that this 80 year-old woman, who will not have skin as resilient as any of you, had intended to drink the coffee later?

The chief MD's food engineer dude claimed that 180F is a dangerous temp, and the thermodynamics expert mentioned the exponential difference beween liquid at 155F and 180F on human skin. It was proven than MD's was aware of this as well, but continued on. 700 lawsuits later, someone finally does something about it.

It sounds as if the defense thought this was a frivulous case as well, until their investigation uncovered years of negligence at the hands of MD's. I say: good for her.

Then again, I have a lifetime ban on McDonald's, and would love to see them extracated from the American (and International) diet, anyway

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
OMG... PLEASE go learn about coffee before you make an even bigger fool of yourself by pulling this crap out of your ass.

McDonald's has CHANGED THEIR COFFEE. I can't believe you're arguing about this. Do a fscking Google search about before yet again making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, they changed their coffee I'm well aware of this - I think that's why I said it.

What possible argument could there be for serving coffee you know is dangerous, when you're using crap for ingredients? I could serve 180 degree coffee made from ground up tires, and it won't make it good.

If McDonald's had been a coffee house, serving high quality coffee, maybe they would have been in a better position, but they weren't. But don't let anything factual get in your way, please.

First off, you need to stop changing your argument in mid stream when the evidence of your ignorance is posted in this thread for everyone to see.

You tried to imply McD's coffee was better because they lowered the temp. Stop acting like you didn't do that.

I simply don't see that implication. Which is besides the point that its completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

Now you're changing your argument about negligence. It would actually be the server's fault unless something about the drive-thru design or policy was a known problem, making it McDonald's fault. Now, McDonald's would probably have insurance to cover employee negligence, but that's another matter.

The ideal holding temp can't be one that makes the coffee go bad faster, because the coffee HAS TO COOL DOWN. (See I can use Caps too). So the ideal 'holding' temp is 180, if you hold it for 0 time, put it in a cup, and someone is there to start drinking it just as it reaches, oh, about 110-120 or so.

Heating coffee after it's made doesn't do anything for it, that's for sure. but applying less heat, and allowing the coffee to cool more isn't going to make any difference.

The 'ideal' would be to apply NO heat, and serve the coffee from the time it is brewed until the time it is not hot enough for the customers' tastes.

 

[OsoVerde]

Yeah, if someone dumps hot coffee on themselves they can expect it to sting a moment, that wasn't the point of the Mclawsuit. The point was that the coffee wasn't just mildly unpleasant for a moment if you dumped it on yourself, it caused 3rd-degree burns. There is a very big difference between "kinda stings" and "3rd degree burns". The former will leave a red mark for maybe an hour at most and the latter may require you to get skin grafts.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i feel left out , somebody plese acknowldege my post.

acknowledged

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
OMG... PLEASE go learn about coffee before you make an even bigger fool of yourself by pulling this crap out of your ass.

McDonald's has CHANGED THEIR COFFEE. I can't believe you're arguing about this. Do a fscking Google search about before yet again making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, they changed their coffee I'm well aware of this - I think that's why I said it.

What possible argument could there be for serving coffee you know is dangerous, when you're using crap for ingredients? I could serve 180 degree coffee made from ground up tires, and it won't make it good.

If McDonald's had been a coffee house, serving high quality coffee, maybe they would have been in a better position, but they weren't. But don't let anything factual get in your way, please.

First off, you need to stop changing your argument in mid stream when the evidence of your ignorance is posted in this thread for everyone to see.

You tried to imply McD's coffee was better because they lowered the temp. Stop acting like you didn't do that.

I'm looking at my post, and I didn't say that, but I could see why you would think I did.

What I was trying to say was that the coffee is served much cooler and is better... oh wait, that's what I said.

The reason it is better - and I recall quite vivdly when this happened - is because McDonald's stopped using crap instead of coffee beans. But the temperature doesn't seem to be hurting them.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

There is a difference between a Frivolous Lawsuit and an ancutal lawsuit.

A frivolous one would be the case where two extremely obese girls sued McDonalds or making them fat. It that isn't stupid, then I don't know what is.

This would be an example of an actual lawsuit because no product that is meant to be touching the body should be a able to harm a person that fast and that extensively. If they had lowered the temperature 30 degrees, it would have been fine. If McDonalds had only paid for the damage that they knew they could cause, the case wouldn't have happened,

Personally, unless I need to, I too have a ban on McDonalds. It is partly from "Supersize Me" (Which I actually not that big about as It was sort of biased) but another is that it isn't to appealing

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

Now you're changing your argument about negligence. It would actually be the server's fault unless something about the drive-thru design or policy was a known problem, making it McDonald's fault. Now, McDonald's would probably have insurance to cover employee negligence, but that's another matter.

The ideal holding temp can't be one that makes the coffee go bad faster, because the coffee HAS TO COOL DOWN. (See I can use Caps too). So the ideal 'holding' temp is 180, if you hold it for 0 time, put it in a cup, and someone is there to start drinking it just as it reaches, oh, about 110-120 or so.
Heating coffee after it's made doesn't do anything for it, that's for sure. but applying less heat, and allowing the coffee to cool more isn't going to make any difference.

The 'ideal' would be to apply NO heat, and serve the coffee from the time it is brewed until the time it is not hot enough for the customers' tastes.

my Bunn machine at home brews at 175 and hold it at 140. In my opinion 180 is way to fricken hot to serve somebody.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

Now you're changing your argument about negligence. It would actually be the server's fault unless something about the drive-thru design or policy was a known problem, making it McDonald's fault. Now, McDonald's would probably have insurance to cover employee negligence, but that's another matter.

The ideal holding temp can't be one that makes the coffee go bad faster, because the coffee HAS TO COOL DOWN. (See I can use Caps too). So the ideal 'holding' temp is 180, if you hold it for 0 time, put it in a cup, and someone is there to start drinking it just as it reaches, oh, about 110-120 or so.

Heating coffee after it's made doesn't do anything for it, that's for sure. but applying less heat, and allowing the coffee to cool more isn't going to make any difference.

The 'ideal' would be to apply NO heat, and serve the coffee from the time it is brewed until the time it is not hot enough for the customers' tastes.

Do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance about coffee and service for all to see. Please. It's even making me cringe it's so embarrassing.

It simply amazes me that you refuse to do a simple google search and read ANY gourmet coffee site to learn about ideal temps.

On the issue of neglegence:

They drove off with the coffee. It did not spill during the transaction. She stupidly placed the coffee between her legs and opened the securely fastened lid.

Drop the drive through bullsh!t. It's a pathetic dodge. Her injuries could have happened had she gone in the store and taken the coffee to go. The drive through had nothing to do with it. Her stupidity did.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

Now you're changing your argument about negligence. It would actually be the server's fault unless something about the drive-thru design or policy was a known problem, making it McDonald's fault. Now, McDonald's would probably have insurance to cover employee negligence, but that's another matter.

The ideal holding temp can't be one that makes the coffee go bad faster, because the coffee HAS TO COOL DOWN. (See I can use Caps too). So the ideal 'holding' temp is 180, if you hold it for 0 time, put it in a cup, and someone is there to start drinking it just as it reaches, oh, about 110-120 or so.
Heating coffee after it's made doesn't do anything for it, that's for sure. but applying less heat, and allowing the coffee to cool more isn't going to make any difference.

The 'ideal' would be to apply NO heat, and serve the coffee from the time it is brewed until the time it is not hot enough for the customers' tastes.

my Bunn machine at home brews at 175 and hold it at 140. In my opinion 180 is way to fricken hot to serve somebody.

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

Because that was the meat of the case. Without the claim that McDonald's brewed and served their coffee at unreasonably high temps, and the insurance company's stupidity in not proving that to be false, the case would have fell apart

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
It's obvious you know nothing about bewing coffee. And you say my statement was dumb? Wow.

Please, go learn about coffee at any of dozens of gourmet coffee websites before trying to claim I am making dumb claims about coffee.

Wow...

Meanwhile, I make the same claim: Find me one successful lawsuit involving a case of self inflicted coffee injuries since the McD's case. Dozens have been pressed. From fast food to Starbucks. None have been successful.

Now you're trying to split hairs, and it's just silly. Coffee has ALWAYS been served hot enough to burn.

You're sounding dumber all the time. If McDonald's was the only drive-thru selling coffee at that temperature, and they stopped, why would another lawsuit be successful?

The coffee has to cool off sometime - when you have volume sales, you're moving it quickly and there's no reason to serve it so hot. Coffee in a paper cup stays drinkable for close to an hour (admittedly, I drink it black), I can only guess that styrofoam works substantially better.

Now, kindly tell ATOT that you don't believe in negligence, and I'll let it drop.

Starbucks serves through drive throughs at that temp range. So do other coffee houses.

Again, PLEASE stop pulling crap out of your ass. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. And you have the audacity to tell me I sound dumb?

Wow...

I love how your argument changed to drive throughs when I explained to you the ideal brewing and holding temps.

Yes, I believe in negligence. The lady spilled obviously hot coffee on herself. She was negligent. Had the server spilled the coffee on her, it would be McDonald's fault.

Now you're changing your argument about negligence. It would actually be the server's fault unless something about the drive-thru design or policy was a known problem, making it McDonald's fault. Now, McDonald's would probably have insurance to cover employee negligence, but that's another matter.

The ideal holding temp can't be one that makes the coffee go bad faster, because the coffee HAS TO COOL DOWN. (See I can use Caps too). So the ideal 'holding' temp is 180, if you hold it for 0 time, put it in a cup, and someone is there to start drinking it just as it reaches, oh, about 110-120 or so.

Heating coffee after it's made doesn't do anything for it, that's for sure. but applying less heat, and allowing the coffee to cool more isn't going to make any difference.

The 'ideal' would be to apply NO heat, and serve the coffee from the time it is brewed until the time it is not hot enough for the customers' tastes.

Do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance about coffee and service for all to see. Please. It's even making me cringe it's so embarrassing.

It simply amazes me that you refuse to do a simple google search and read ANY gourmet coffee site to learn about ideal temps.

On the issue of neglegence:

They drove off with the coffee. It did not spill during the transaction. She stupidly placed the coffee between her legs and opened the securely fastened lid.

Drop the drive through bullsh!t. It's a pathetic dodge. Her injuries could have happened had she gone in the store and taken the coffee to go. The drive through had nothing to do with it. Her stupidity did.

I dont think anyone is questioning that she's an idiot and that she caused it. The negligence is due to how mcdonalds choices massively amplified the damage.

If nintendo were to outfit their wiimotes with hidden razor blades at their tips because "its more realistic and fun", I'd certainly still call anyone an idiot who smashed one into their own face, but I'd can't help but think that nintendo is partially responsible for the fact that the person needs a face transplant rather than a bandaid.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Citrix
in the latest survey 9/10 people prefer the new mcdonalds premium blend coffee over starbucks.

so i got a cup and i must say it is a very very good cup of coffee and not bitter at all like starbucks and about 2 bucks cheaper per cup.

was this from a survey involving a blind taste test, or one where people actually drank a cup of each? Results vary drastically from these type of tests. Blind taste tests, which led to the cola wars (pepsi being preferred over coke--even though people still didn't buy more pepsi, coke does the test themselves and finds it to be true--coke creates "new coke"--riots ensue--coke goes back to real coke--the world discovers that people prefer one sip of pepsi, but prefer drinking coke) are quite irrelevent. Doesn't mean they aren't used in marketing, but they do mean jack sh1t when it comes to what people actually want to enjoy

btw, sweeter products will always test better in sipping surveys, but people don't want to sit around and drink a full glass of it (on ave)

Price, of course (SB vs MD), will always decide what sells around here, though

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused
Do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance about coffee and service for all to see. Please. It's even making me cringe it's so embarrassing.

It simply amazes me that you refuse to do a simple google search and read ANY gourmet coffee site to learn about ideal temps.

On the issue of neglegence:

They drove off with the coffee. It did not spill during the transaction. She stupidly placed the coffee between her legs and opened the securely fastened lid.

Drop the drive through bullsh!t. It's a pathetic dodge. Her injuries could have happened had she gone in the store and taken the coffee to go. The drive through had nothing to do with it. Her stupidity did.

I did a little checking, and we need to push the numbers higher - about 195-205 for brewing. But not for cooling. The main point of this is actually not the specific numbers, and the main response was actually improved cups and lids (I knew they were better, I didn't know this was considered the more important response). None of this helps your argument. In fact if the cup/lid and not the coffee was mainly to blame, the negligence is much more obvious.

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BD2003

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

Because that was the meat of the case. Without the claim that McDonald's brewed and served their coffee at unreasonably high temps, and the insurance company's stupidity in not proving that to be false, the case would have fell apart

Given the actual response of the restaurants, perhaps the meat of the case *should* have been the cups.

Ten years ago, I thought this was the stupidest lawsuit I'd ever heard of, too. Many of the ones since (the burgler who got locked in the garage, etc) really were that dumb. This one was not.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Amused
Do yourself a favor and stop displaying your ignorance about coffee and service for all to see. Please. It's even making me cringe it's so embarrassing.

It simply amazes me that you refuse to do a simple google search and read ANY gourmet coffee site to learn about ideal temps.

On the issue of neglegence:

They drove off with the coffee. It did not spill during the transaction. She stupidly placed the coffee between her legs and opened the securely fastened lid.

Drop the drive through bullsh!t. It's a pathetic dodge. Her injuries could have happened had she gone in the store and taken the coffee to go. The drive through had nothing to do with it. Her stupidity did.

I did a little checking, and we need to push the numbers higher - about 195-205 for brewing. But not for cooling. The main point of this is actually not the specific numbers, and the main response was actually improved cups and lids (I knew they were better, I didn't know this was considered the more important response). None of this helps your argument. In fact if the cup/lid and not the coffee was mainly to blame, the negligence is much more obvious.

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

My gawd! You're doing it again. You're changing your argument midstream yet AGAIN!

The lid was securly fastened. SHE tried to remove it and in doing so, fudged it up. Had she not tried to remove the lid while the cup was between her legs, this wouldn't have happened.

Stop... just stop.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BD2003

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

Because that was the meat of the case. Without the claim that McDonald's brewed and served their coffee at unreasonably high temps, and the insurance company's stupidity in not proving that to be false, the case would have fell apart

But the case wasnt about whether it was unreasonable for taste, it was about whether it was unreasonable for consumption. It's no different than serving undercooked, nearly raw meat. Many will argue that the less cooked, the better the taste, but you simply can't serve that kind of food to people without warning them of the *serious* risks.

You can argue night and day about the optimal brewing temperature for taste, but thats simply not the issue at hand.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

That wasn't my point about the negligence, the point was that you're throwing out a red herring. 'The Ford Pinto would never have exploded if no one got rear-ended in one' - that's the argument you're making.

Only a delusional person could make that comparison.

Just stop already.

 

[Conky]

McDonald's coffee used to be unbelievably insanely hot. They had to know it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

And if anyone reads that article and still thinks the lawsuit was frivolous then they don't understand the circumstances surrounding this case. Eight days in the hospital with burnt genitals because a huge corporation can get an extra few ounces of coffee per pound by serving it at near boiling temps. That's just not right.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BD2003

Im personally still at a loss as to how quickly this thread has degenerated into an argument as how best to brew coffee for optimal taste.

Because that was the meat of the case. Without the claim that McDonald's brewed and served their coffee at unreasonably high temps, and the insurance company's stupidity in not proving that to be false, the case would have fell apart

But the case wasnt about whether it was unreasonable for taste, it was about whether it was unreasonable for consumption. It's no different than serving undercooked, nearly raw meat. Many will argue that the less cooked, the better the taste, but you simply can't serve that kind of food to people without warning them of the *serious* risks.

You can argue night and day about the optimal brewing temperature for taste, but thats simply not the issue at hand.

Yes, it is. Because on busy mornings the coffee is often sold as fast as it is brewed.

What then? A manditory waiting period for coffee? A coffee Brady Bill?

How about a little personal responsibility? Coffee is hot. It burns. If you spill it on yourself you deserve what you get.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Conky
McDonald's coffee used to be unbelievably insanely hot. They had to know it was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

And if anyone reads that article and still thinks the lawsuit was frivolous then they don't understand the circumstances surrounding this case. Eight days in the hospital with burnt genitals because a huge corporation can get an extra few ounces of coffee per pound by serving it at near boiling temps. That's just not right.

But it tastes better that way.