WTF???

[knapplc]

Doesn't that confirm what I said? I said they serve it within 10-20 degrees of McDonald's. Danny found that they serve it within 20 degrees. I'd say that's pretty close for guessing, even though I was off with the 10- part.

 

But let's say it was even 30 degrees cooler than McD's 180 degrees, and we're being served 150-degree coffee (we know it's hotter because of Danny's experiment, but for the sake of argument). That means that we're being served coffee that will cause second-degree burns within two seconds. Clearly this is too hot to drink, and poses a safety risk, yes? But that's the temp we're getting coffee served to us at most coffee shops.

 

Looking at some of the articles I read about the McDonald's case, it looks like this woman would have been burned at 140 degrees, likely with 2nd- or 3rd-degree burns, because she didn't immediately remove her soaked clothing. 140-degree water gives second and 2nd- or 3rd-degree burns within five seconds.

 

People want to rake McDonald's over the coals for this but they weren't "callously disregarding" the safety of their customers. Starbucks currently markets a machine for your home that dispenses coffee at 180 degrees. Are we saying they're showing "callous disregard" for their customers, or are they simply selling a product that the vast majority of the coffee-drinking world accepts as standard?

 

 

 

EDIT - Click the picture for a surprise ^^^^

[carlfense]

Doesn't that confirm what I said? I said they serve it within 10-20 degrees of McDonald's. Danny found that they serve it within 20 degrees. I'd say that's pretty close for guessing, even though I was off with the 10- part.

 

***snip***

 

No. You said every single place serves coffee within 10-20 degrees of the 180-190 degree mark. The article said that none came closer than 20 degrees cooler.

 

That's a significant difference.

[knapplc]

The article says that at least one comes as close as 20. Danny cut it off at 20. If none came closer than 30, Danny would have said 30. So at least one is 20, and likely more. Because that's how you serve coffee - hot.

 

And the rest of what I posted, that you snipped, is gold. Pure gold. Including the Starbucks pot which serves coffee at 180 degrees (the McDonald's temperature of horror and boo-boos), and the clickable pic showing burn rates over time, which shows that even if Ms. Liebeck had been served coffee 40 degrees cooler, she still would have suffered 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns. And according to Danny, the coffee joints across town were serving coffee that hot and hotter.

 

Again, we're claiming that McDonald's exhibited a "callous disregard for the safety of their customers." They did not. They served coffee slightly hotter than industry standard (at the time), yet under normal coffee-brewing temperatures.

 

And what's probably the most ludicrous thing about this is that with the growing interest in French Press coffee (which is the only way I brew at home) and pour-over methods becoming more and more popular, coffee is being served at these temperatures all the time now. What was worth millions to Ms. Liebeck is now "the new thing" in kitschy coffee shops across America. I love pour-over coffee, and I'm not about to sue the maker if I burn myself.

 

It's coffee. It's hot.

[HUSKER 37]

 

Proper brewing temperature for coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees. Any lower than that and you're making swill, and you deserve to drink swill if you don't know this. ...

 

 

Doesn't that confirm what I said? I said they serve it within 10-20 degrees of McDonald's. Danny found that they serve it within 20 degrees. I'd say that's pretty close for guessing, even though I was off with the 10- part.

 

But let's say it was even 30 degrees cooler than McD's 180 degrees, and we're being served 150-degree coffee (we know it's hotter because of Danny's experiment, but for the sake of argument). That means that we're being served coffee that will cause second-degree burns within two seconds. Clearly this is too hot to drink, and poses a safety risk, yes? But that's the temp we're getting coffee served to us at most coffee shops.

 

Looking at some of the articles I read about the McDonald's case, it looks like this woman would have been burned at 140 degrees, likely with 2nd- or 3rd-degree burns, because she didn't immediately remove her soaked clothing. 140-degree water gives second and 2nd- or 3rd-degree burns within five seconds.

 

People want to rake McDonald's over the coals for this but they weren't "callously disregarding" the safety of their customers. Starbucks currently markets a machine for your home that dispenses coffee at 180 degrees. Are we saying they're showing "callous disregard" for their customers, or are they simply selling a product that the vast majority of the coffee-drinking world accepts as standard?

 

 

 

Sounds like even after McD's received several complaints about the heat of the Coffee, they made the executive decision to still serve it at that temperature for their own bennefit.

 

I just started drinking coffee about a month ago..I still have to water it down so I don't burn off my sensitive but sexy lips. If you call that "swill" I can just imagine what you'd call my preference of just eating dry coffee beans and bypassing the water altogether.

 

But the graph you added clearly shows the correlation between increased temperature and inverse "exponential" burn time. (There's a significant difference in anyone's ability to react within 1.5 seconds @ 150F or instant burnage at 180F)

 

You (as a buidness) HAVE to sell to your lowest common denominator when it comes to safety issues.

You or I might have a less than one second reaction time to scalding temps, but you really should target a temperature that allows for slower times unless you start implementing age limits for your beverage consumer.

 

There's several variables not even mentioned yet, like the type of fabric the sweatpants were made of and their wicking ability or even their ability to insulate against a certain volume of hot liquid..

 

I'd also like a little clarification from that graph about the type of skin those burn rates pertain to.

(I'd probably be able to withstand higher temps for four or five times as long on my finger tips than on my naughty parts)....even my naughty lips.

[carlfense]

The article says that at least one comes as close as 20. Danny cut it off at 20. If none came closer than 30, Danny would have said 30. So at least one is 20, and likely more. Because that's how you serve coffee - hot.

 

And the rest of what I posted, that you snipped, is gold. Pure gold. Including the Starbucks pot which serves coffee at 180 degrees (the McDonald's temperature of horror and boo-boos), and the clickable pic showing burn rates over time, which shows that even if Ms. Liebeck had been served coffee 40 degrees cooler, she still would have suffered 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns. And according to Danny, the coffee joints across town were serving coffee that hot and hotter.

 

Again, we're claiming that McDonald's exhibited a "callous disregard for the safety of their customers." They did not. They served coffee slightly hotter than industry standard (at the time), yet under normal coffee-brewing temperatures.

 

And what's probably the most ludicrous thing about this is that with the growing interest in French Press coffee (which is the only way I brew at home) and pour-over methods becoming more and more popular, coffee is being served at these temperatures all the time now. What was worth millions to Ms. Liebeck is now "the new thing" in kitschy coffee shops across America. I love pour-over coffee, and I'm not about to sue the maker if I burn myself.

 

It's coffee. It's hot.

Sorry. I have a final Friday morning so I didn't want to address it all at once.

 

Does colder coffee cause less severe burns? Can you prove that her burns would have been as severe if the coffee had been 155 degrees? Just curious.

 

Also, has Starbucks received 700 complaints about the temperature of the coffee brewed by their pot? Has someone required skin grafts because of the Starbucks coffee pot's coffee? Does Starbucks have a warning on it that the contents are so hot that they can cause severe burns?

 

Is this just a case of apples and oranges?

 

From the same article:

. . . a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

[carlfense]

Also:

The testimony of Mr. Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, "There are more serious dangers in restaurants."

 

Looks like negligence to me. I've had the old "DUTYBREACHCAUSATIONDAMAGES" fairly well hammered into my head. The judge and jury found more than just negligence . . . they found willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. I can't say that I disagree.

[knapplc]

Chewing coffee beans straight is the next step up to how I drink coffee. I like it very strong. If there's a Peet's in your area, try theirs. That's what I like. So no, I doubt you drink "swill." But most of Nebraska does, that much I can tell you.

 

I agree with you about the graph, but the reality is that even at 140 degrees (which most nobody serves coffee at) would burn in five seconds, and since we know that Ms. Liebeck didn't take her pants off in five seconds, she would have been burned regardless of whether the coffee was served at 180 (a current standard) or 140 (which is considered "cold" by some coffee drinkers). In that scenario, McDonald's simply cannot win - unless we make the plaintiff take more responsibility for her own action of putting the coffee in her crotch on an inclined surface, then removing the lid. That's what I'm on about.

 

Back to the graph, I'd be just about certain that it's talking about external skin, not internal, softer tissues. It's from a site dealing with construction standards, primarily discussing hot water heaters, so think showers, baths, and kitchen sinks.

 

Regarding the lowest common denominator - that's what I've been trying to pass along. Coffee is typically served hot, according to Danny it's served at 160 and below all across the town he checked during the trial. Cold coffee (which you can buy or make) is heinous. Most coffee drinkers drink coffee hot, and, according to Danny, 160 degrees is not uncommon.

[knapplc]

Sorry. I have a final Friday morning so I didn't want to address it all at once.

 

Does colder coffee cause less severe burns? Can you prove that her burns would have been as severe if the coffee had been 155 degrees? Just curious.

 

Also, has Starbucks received 700 complaints about the temperature of the coffee brewed by their pot? Has someone required skin grafts because of the Starbucks coffee pot's coffee? Does Starbucks have a warning on it that the contents are so hot that they can cause severe burns?

 

Is this just a case of apples and oranges?

 

From the same article:

. . . a doctor testifying on behalf of Mrs. Liebeck argued that lowering the serving temperature to about 160 degrees could make a big difference, because it takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees.

That doctor's testimony is directly contradicted by the graph I provided, which is takes info from The American Burn Association, The Consumer Products Safety Commission, the VA and others.

 

The paragraph about 700 complaints, etc. is a non-starter. I would think we could agree that dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people burn themselves on coffee every year, no? What does that mean? It's the old argument against speeding: Driving 55 mph saves lives compared to 65, so we should lower highway speeds to 55, right? But driving 45 is safer, as is 35, 25, etc. At some point we have to realize that driving on a highway at highway speeds carries inherent risks - just like drinking coffee.

[carlfense]

The paragraph about 700 complaints, etc. is a non-starter. I would think we could agree that dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people burn themselves on coffee every year, no? What does that mean? It's the old argument against speeding: Driving 55 mph saves lives compared to 65, so we should lower highway speeds to 55, right? But driving 45 is safer, as is 35, 25, etc. At some point we have to realize that driving on a highway at highway speeds carries inherent risks - just like drinking coffee.

No. It's not a non-starter. You're an attorney, correct? I'm sure you know that it's evidence that McDonalds was aware of the problem and willfully chose to ignore it. It's like the old tort case about the store owner's knowledge of the overly slick sidewalk. 700 separate incidents indicates (and McDonalds admits!) that they knew that their product could cause severe injuries. If they don't at least warn the consumer of that, shame on them. They got what they deserved.

 

Also, your internet graph doesn't automatically trump expert testimony, as I'm sure you're aware. I'm guessing McDonalds could afford some fairly impressive experts . . . but they still couldn't manage to convince the judge or jury that McDonalds acted reasonably.

[knapplc]

I am not an attorney. And I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night either, so I don't even have that going for me.

 

I am familiar with some aspects of law, however, and I'm aware of current coffee culture.

 

Saying that McDonald's "got what they deserve" is simply wrong. They got what a sympathetic jury and a stupid defense team gave them. We know that's wrong because, as I've stated numerous times, coffee is currently served across the country at the same temperature that Ms. Liebeck burned herself at, and we aren't seeing a crazy spate of lawsuits as a result. Why is that? Because people know coffee is hot, and that it's better when it's hotter, and they accept the risk of drinking hot coffee by not doing what Ms. Liebeck stupidly did.

 

And regarding the edit - again, sympathetic jury and stupid defense team. That doesn't mean Ms. Liebeck was any more right than OJ was innocent.

 

Sometimes trials don't go the way they should. That doesn't mean we toss common sense out the window, just because a jury ruled one way or the other.

[HUSKER 37]

Chewing coffee beans straight is the next step up to how I drink coffee. I like it very strong. If there's a Peet's in your area, try theirs. That's what I like. So no, I doubt you drink "swill." But most of Nebraska does, that much I can tell you.

 

I agree with you about the graph, but the reality is that even at 140 degrees (which most nobody serves coffee at) would burn in five seconds, and since we know that Ms. Liebeck didn't take her pants off in five seconds, she would have been burned regardless of whether the coffee was served at 180 (a current standard) or 140 (which is considered "cold" by some coffee drinkers). In that scenario, McDonald's simply cannot win - unless we make the plaintiff take more responsibility for her own action of putting the coffee in her crotch on an inclined surface, then removing the lid. That's what I'm on about.

 

Back to the graph, I'd be just about certain that it's talking about external skin, not internal, softer tissues. It's from a site dealing with construction standards, primarily discussing hot water heaters, so think showers, baths, and kitchen sinks.

 

Regarding the lowest common denominator - that's what I've been trying to pass along. Coffee is typically served hot, according to Danny it's served at 160 and below all across the town he checked during the trial. Cold coffee (which you can buy or make) is heinous. Most coffee drinkers drink coffee hot, and, according to Danny, 160 degrees is not uncommon.

 

I usually like it cold too..I just discovered/invented? a new drink last week by putting half a handful of hazelnut coffee beans in a 2Liter bottle of Coke for an hour..Blows Vanilla Coke way out of the sugar water.

 

Something else about the graph that I think you might be ignoring..Those data points are almost certainly based on constant temps..180f will still be 180f at the end of the burn time, but in the case of a cup of coffee, once it makes contact with your clothing (depending on the fabric) it will start to cool..more-so after your skin starts coming into equalibrium temperature with the limited quantity of coffee. Also, the greater the surface area of the spilled coffee the faster it will cool to close to body temperature..(My guess = 107f after 4 seconds).

 

My point: at 150f or probably even at 165f innitial temp (at time of spill) might not burn you very bad even if you're unable to depants yourself..180F...I'd deffinitely get nekid, but after half a second, it would be too late.

[knapplc]

I'm not ignoring that about the graph at all. I've stated at least once that the plaintiff was likely to get burned because she failed to take action to remove her wet clothing even if the coffee was cooler.

[HUSKER 37]

I'm not ignoring that about the graph at all. I've stated at least once that the plaintiff was likely to get burned because she failed to take action to remove her wet clothing even if the coffee was cooler.

 

But if it was 10-20f cooler, would she even need to?

[knapplc]

I'm not ignoring that about the graph at all. I've stated at least once that the plaintiff was likely to get burned because she failed to take action to remove her wet clothing even if the coffee was cooler.

 

But if it was 10-20f cooler, would she even need to?

Gotcha, I see where you're going. Maybe she doesn't need to.

 

However, that's like saying that if highway speeds were 35mph, we would have less fatalities. It's true, but the reality is that highways inherently mean high speeds. That's the point of highways. Coffee being hot is the point of (most) coffee. Today I can go to a dozen places across Lincoln and get coffee served to me at 180 degrees, and none of them are McDonald's. With the growing popularity of pressed coffee, which I drink, you're getting a cup of joe at 180-190, because it's brewed at 195-205 and poured straight into your cup. Pour-over is poured straight from the heat source at 200 degrees, right through the grounds and into your cup. That cup is then handed to you, and you're on your own.

 

My point is that if it was so callously unsafe of McDonald's to serve Ms. Liebeck coffee at that temperature, why can I get coffee at that temp and hotter all over town right now?

 

Isn't it more logical to assume that Ms. Liebeck acted foolishly by putting a known hot substance between her legs, on an incline sloped toward her body, and taking off the lid? Or is it more logical to assume that today's coffee culture is rife with companies displaying callous disregard for their customers? Clearly it's the former.

[carlfense]

I'm not ignoring that about the graph at all. I've stated at least once that the plaintiff was likely to get burned because she failed to take action to remove her wet clothing even if the coffee was cooler.

 

But if it was 10-20f cooler, would she even need to?

Gotcha, I see where you're going. Maybe she doesn't need to.

 

However, that's like saying that if highway speeds were 35mph, we would have less fatalities. It's true, but the reality is that highways inherently mean high speeds. That's the point of highways. Coffee being hot is the point of (most) coffee. Today I can go to a dozen places across Lincoln and get coffee served to me at 180 degrees, and none of them are McDonald's. With the growing popularity of pressed coffee, which I drink, you're getting a cup of joe at 180-190, because it's brewed at 195-205 and poured straight into your cup. Pour-over is poured straight from the heat source at 200 degrees, right through the grounds and into your cup. That cup is then handed to you, and you're on your own.

 

My point is that if it was so callously unsafe of McDonald's to serve Ms. Liebeck coffee at that temperature, why can I get coffee at that temp and hotter all over town right now?

 

Isn't it more logical to assume that Ms. Liebeck acted foolishly by putting a known hot substance between her legs, on an incline sloped toward her body, and taking off the lid? Or is it more logical to assume that today's coffee culture is rife with companies displaying callous disregard for their customers? Clearly it's the former.

Not at all. McDonalds could have avoided ALL of this by just informing the customers that their coffee was so hot that it can cause severe burns. One little sentence on the cup . . . and they are basically off the hook. Apparently that was too much trouble. Again you cite 180 degree coffee available all over Lincoln . . . with no reference whatsoever to back up that claim. (Not to mention that the McDonalds coffee was brewed at 195 degrees to 205 degrees and not 180 degrees.) The McDonalds coffee could have been as hot as 205 degrees! But yet you claim McDonalds has no duty to warn their customer of the danger even though they acknowledge the severe injuries that it can cause. Interesting.