WTF???

[HUSKER 37]

Who hasn't tried that? Pretty much anyone with an inkling of what the consequences are. That only takes a little bit of common sense.

 

But 150 isn't "harmless." You're still talking about 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns at that temperature.

 

Further, the cool-down time is far less relevant than the temperature at the time of initial contact - that's when the majority of a burn happens.

 

 

So you were one of "those kids".

Mom told you not to run with scissors and you dutifully obeyed just so she'd brag to grandma about how obedient you were..and smart.

 

Many of us grew up being adrenaline junkies..You're not doing your job as a kid if your parents are the last on the block with gray hair...

 

True..150f is not harmless when you're talking hot tub or shower temperatures, but relative to 180?

Accd to your graph you can sustain two seconds of it..probably much more as that 150 cools to 130 in another 2 seconds.

 

In relation to a coffee spill, you're right..the initial contact will cause the most damage..But in the case of a shower or large quantity of water (where cool-down is negligible..and I believe your graph was based on)..once the protective outer epidermis is burned away, much more damage occurs to the underlying tissues and at a faster rate.

[knapplc]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

[HUSKER 37]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

 

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely..

 

If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened.

 

But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" and thereby taking on some of the blame.. But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at.

 

The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous.

[carlfense]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

 

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely..

 

If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened.

 

But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at.

 

The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous.

The jury came close. They reduced her damages by 20% because of her own negligence.

[knapplc]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

 

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely..

 

If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened.

 

But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" and thereby taking on some of the blame.. But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at.

 

The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous.

 

Now we're just getting absurd. There is an inherent amount of risk you accept wherever you go. Toddlers under counters? Really?

 

What about a deli that cuts meat with a knife? What if a toddler is waiting in line under the counter and the knife falls off. Hazard!

 

What about your favorite Mexican joint - that sizzling-hot plate of fajitas they bring to your table is hotter than 180 degrees. What if the waiter trips and drops the pan on a toddler sitting at the table? Hazard!

 

We can put toddlers in dangerous situations all we want, but the fact remains that McDonald's served this woman coffee at a temperature at or near what coffee vendors typically sell their coffee at to this day.

 

Just because this plaintiff found a sympathetic jury and judge doesn't mean anything.

[I See Red People]

[carlfense]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

 

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely..

 

If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened.

 

But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" and thereby taking on some of the blame.. But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at.

 

The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous.

 

Now we're just getting absurd. There is an inherent amount of risk you accept wherever you go. Toddlers under counters? Really?

 

What about a deli that cuts meat with a knife? What if a toddler is waiting in line under the counter and the knife falls off. Hazard!

 

What about your favorite Mexican joint - that sizzling-hot plate of fajitas they bring to your table is hotter than 180 degrees. What if the waiter trips and drops the pan on a toddler sitting at the table? Hazard!

 

We can put toddlers in dangerous situations all we want, but the fact remains that McDonald's served this woman coffee at a temperature at or near what coffee vendors typically sell their coffee at to this day.

 

Just because this plaintiff found a sympathetic jury and judge doesn't mean anything.

You keep saying that and it is entirely untrue.

 

The jury went into the case knowing the facts that you knew before you did more extensive research:

1. Woman spilled coffee on herself.

2. The coffee burned her.

 

That woman/plaintiff had an extraordinary bias to overcome. You or I would immediately have a preconceived notion that she was just a money grubbing litigious drain on the system. That is an enormous burden to overcome. Do you know how you overcome that burden? You overcome that burden by having the facts on your side. This woman did, and she won.

 

I don't doubt for a second that if the jury had found against her you'd be trumpeting it as evidence of how correct your assessment is. Therefore, I'll do likewise.

[killer cacti]

WTF is this world coming to? I swear people look for reasons to sue others.

 

I'm going to touch someones electric fence on their property and then sue them.

 

Be responsible for your own actions, people. It's not that hard. Roads have traffic. Coffee is hot.

[sd'sker]

i would like to point out a few things. first, she was severely injured, because the coffee was too hot. mcdonalds made their coffee extra hot so that people would drink less of it, as there are free refills and people would have to wait for it to cool down, having less time to get refills (we have all been in a mcdonalds and seen retired farmers nurse a cup for the entire time you were there). (i still think it is way too hot, as i have to wait 45 min or more to comfortably drink it, but that's just me). also, the punitive damages were just one day, only one, of profits mcdonalds received from coffee. for a multinational corporation, that is not much at all. the point of punitive damages is to punish, and that is a mere slap on the wrist with a slap bracelet (generally not that painful, not as painful as a cup of coffee to the crotch). but if you look at her damages and mcdonalds punishment, it would seem mcdonalds was punished far less severely than the lady was injured.

it is unfair to bring up personal responsibility because she was not irresponsible. yes, she was clumsy, but people have a right to be clumsy and not sustain third degree burns (she wasn't welding, she was trying to enjoy a cup of coffee). a person has a right to drink coffee, at the risk of spilling it, and not seriously injure themselves (this was not mere discomfort or even burns, it was third degree burns causing re-constructive surgery). that's like saying, those people who drove toyota vehicles that sped up on their own were responsible for any damages because driving a car is inherently dangerous. it is not supposed to be that dangerous. mcdonalds has the responsibility to sale a product that will not cause catastrophic injuries (after all, it is a restaurant, not a torture emporium).

 

also, judges can't be sympathetic, they are impartial.

and if the trial judge isn't, the appeals judge will be.

[sd'sker]

We're not talking about adrenaline junkie kids, we're talking about a 79-year-old woman who should know better.

 

I knew it could burn me the few times I've done that with hot chocolate..or worse BEER (I hate wasting beers), but I also had trouble not believing a spill was unlikely..

 

If I was on the jury in this case, I would have voted to hold her up to 30% responsible and reduced the damages by that much..Funny how cupholders became so common after this happened.

 

But McDonald's had no way of knowing she'd try this "daredevil tactic" and thereby taking on some of the blame.. But what if it were the more likely event of just a knocked over cup of coffee at the counter (during the transaction)? Say it spilled over the counter top and landed on a toddler that was waiting in line under the counter? Accidents happen, but there is one thing that could've been chaged in either instance...The Temperature the coffee was served at.

 

The cause of any potential damage has to initiate with those responsible for releasing the hazardous substance..and at anything above 180f I'd consider it to have a strong probability of being hazardous.

 

Now we're just getting absurd. There is an inherent amount of risk you accept wherever you go. Toddlers under counters? Really?

 

What about a deli that cuts meat with a knife? What if a toddler is waiting in line under the counter and the knife falls off. Hazard!

 

What about your favorite Mexican joint - that sizzling-hot plate of fajitas they bring to your table is hotter than 180 degrees. What if the waiter trips and drops the pan on a toddler sitting at the table? Hazard!

We can put toddlers in dangerous situations all we want, but the fact remains that McDonald's served this woman coffee at a temperature at or near what coffee vendors typically sell their coffee at to this day.

 

Just because this plaintiff found a sympathetic jury and judge doesn't mean anything.

you don't think there would be a lawsuit under those scenarios? there are hazards, and there are standards of care; and that is why there is insurance. and i'm still not so convinced that the temp. mcdonalds used is the standard. even so, lids are more secure and warnings are more prevalent, heck this case is the greatest warning to the public that coffee can be dangerous.

 

also, earlier you said something about, just because a jury found in her favor, that means nothing. wrong! that means everything, that is the only thing that matters in our judicial system. the jury is the fact finder, and what they find is fact. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

 

and as zack galinfinakis said,

[sd'sker]

i think we can all agree that the google maps suit is ridiculous. but that is far less interesting.

[knapplc]

You keep saying that and it is entirely untrue.

 

The jury went into the case knowing the facts that you knew before you did more extensive research:

1. Woman spilled coffee on herself.

2. The coffee burned her.

 

That woman/plaintiff had an extraordinary bias to overcome. You or I would immediately have a preconceived notion that she was just a money grubbing litigious drain on the system. That is an enormous burden to overcome. Do you know how you overcome that burden? You overcome that burden by having the facts on your side. This woman did, and she won.

 

I don't doubt for a second that if the jury had found against her you'd be trumpeting it as evidence of how correct your assessment is. Therefore, I'll do likewise.

 

I am actually approaching this from a reasonably unbiased perspective. I have nine year's worth of experience in overcoming biases and applying dry logic to evidence. I am not unbiased, but I am able to set aside my biases as well as most anyone.

 

I told you I'm not an attorney, but I deal with evidence every day. Evidence analysis and application of the law to that evidence is the main thrust of my job. If I were investigating this case I'd find that coffee is served at the temperature that McDonald's served coffee to this woman at locations all across the country, every day. It's an industry standard, and no matter what McDonald's motive was for serving it this hot, it's not unusual in any way. As I've shown, coffee is brewed at 195-205 degrees. It is served from that brew at temps ranging from 197 - 170 at the places I frequent, which is one national chain and one local seller. McDonald's cannot be guilty of placing their customer in more danger than can the national chain or the local seller. Either all are guilty or none is guilty, because all are doing the same thing.

[HUSKER 37]

You keep saying that and it is entirely untrue.

 

The jury went into the case knowing the facts that you knew before you did more extensive research:

1. Woman spilled coffee on herself.

2. The coffee burned her.

 

That woman/plaintiff had an extraordinary bias to overcome. You or I would immediately have a preconceived notion that she was just a money grubbing litigious drain on the system. That is an enormous burden to overcome. Do you know how you overcome that burden? You overcome that burden by having the facts on your side. This woman did, and she won.

 

I don't doubt for a second that if the jury had found against her you'd be trumpeting it as evidence of how correct your assessment is. Therefore, I'll do likewise.

 

I am actually approaching this from a reasonably unbiased perspective. I have nine year's worth of experience in overcoming biases and applying dry logic to evidence. I am not unbiased, but I am able to set aside my biases as well as most anyone.

 

I told you I'm not an attorney, but I deal with evidence every day. Evidence analysis and application of the law to that evidence is the main thrust of my job. If I were investigating this case I'd find that coffee is served at the temperature that McDonald's served coffee to this woman at locations all across the country, every day. It's an industry standard, and no matter what McDonald's motive was for serving it this hot, it's not unusual in any way. As I've shown, coffee is brewed at 195-205 degrees. It is served from that brew at temps ranging from 197 - 170 at the places I frequent, which is one national chain and one local seller. McDonald's cannot be guilty of placing their customer in more danger than can the national chain or the local seller. Either all are guilty or none is guilty, because all are doing the same thing.

 

Forgive me, I must've misread something.

I was under the impression that McDonalds had a policy of SERVING their coffee "20 to 30" degrees hotter than everyone else was AT THAT TIME.

 

Now, you're saying hearsay evidence (What some girl without a powdered wig "told" you she brewed her coffee at that I know for a fact is impossible without pressure cooking and according to one of your links is bad for the taste to brew at the boiling point)..

 

You did your "survey of two" a few years later even...And even if it really WAS an "industry standard" (which I really find hard to believe in any official capacity), each coffee shop/fast food restaurant should weigh the gains vs. the risks and inform their insurance company which approach they plan to take.

 

My Wife would never let me take her to my favourite Mexican Restaurant..She said it was because she didn't like Spicy food, but I'm now guessing it was because she didn't want to sign the release forms.

[knapplc]

I posted a link some dozens of posts back that showed proper brewing temps of coffee. I have a "cheat sheet" on my office wall from my Bodum presser that tells me to brew it at the same temp. That temp? 195-205 degrees.

 

You don't have to believe me. Go to several local coffee shops in your area and have them stick a thermometer in their joe. Or just google proper brewing temperature for coffee and read for yourself.

 

These standards haven't changed since McDonald's was found guilty, and if Leibeck vs. McDonald's was really showing us what reckless disregard for customer safety was, you wouldn't see vendors brewing and serving coffee at these temps today. Clearly they are, which you would find if you did some simple legwork, so something is wonky with the assertion that McDonald's was reckless.

 

I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong when it comes to chemistry. Clearly you're the expert here. But give me some credit for being, at least in this conversation, "the expert" in coffee. I could dismiss your chemistry information as easily as you're dismissing my knowledge of coffee preparation, but that wouldn't make me right. It doesn't matter how much I try to ignore it, chemistry is what it is, and you're right about what you're saying (near as I can tell). Same goes for coffee - I know my coffee, and have for years.

[AR Husker Fan]

All this goes to prove one thing - McDonald's needs to drop coffee and start serving ice-cold beer. Problem solved.

 

Next, I solve the issue of world peace. No, no, no - no need to thank me. I but live to serve (well, other than coffee - I won't serve that now).