WTF???

[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?

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.

 

 

Sorry about being so ignorant about coffee shops..I thought about going to one a few years ago for the free coffee grounds to counteract my high pH garden soil.

 

But I'm going out on a limb and Ass-u-me most coffee bought at the fancy coffee shops is served and consumed in house..I'd guess 95% of fast food places is takeout.

The difference? you have a more better control of how your customers will handle their cups..on a flat table.

But you almost have to know at least most people going through the drive through will inherently be at a greater risk and wont have a flat surface handy.

[HUSKER 37]

Funny you mention highway speed.

 

I was just yelling at the one person going the speed limit on the freeway ride home today (well 5 mph under..they were on their cell phone) it's not the speed that's dangerous..It's the one person going a different speed.

[knapplc]

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.

 

On the contrary. I have provided a link that shows 195-205 is the preferred temperature of brewing. Further, I have cited the growing availability of pour-over, which you can request at The Mill, Bad Robot (when it was still in business), Starbucks, Mo Java, Crescent Moon (presumably when it reopens) and sundry other places around Lincoln, at which I've personally partaken of said drink.

 

What you have not shown is that coffee is not served this hot. You are, apparently, relying on Ms. Liebeck's attorney's assertion that this is somehow out of the norm. It is not.

 

Further, your assertion that all McDonald's had to do was put a simple warning on their drink was already in place when Ms. Liebeck engaged in her dangerous method of applying cream to her beverage.

[rawhide]

My sparklets water dispenser is set at 195 so I can give my instant oaties every morning while I ride my chopper to work, nope it's true that 's what the salesperson said. Well, not about the m/c . Almost everyone drinks swill that is mistakenly labeled coffee. I roast fresh green coffee beans, Kenya AA for my wife, freakin' strong and Sumatran for me, weaker, but I have not done any tests on my B&D coffee maker temperature.

 

I must admit, I too was in the crowd that was against such a heinous award against Mickey D's. I hate their products but sympathized with their plight. Now I don't.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

 

 

GBR

[knapplc]

But I'm going out on a limb and Ass-u-me most coffee bought at the fancy coffee shops is served and consumed in house..I'd guess 95% of fast food places is takeout.

The difference? you have a more better control of how your customers will handle their cups..on a flat table.

But you almost have to know at least most people going through the drive through will inherently be at a greater risk and wont have a flat surface handy.

 

I have no idea about percentages of take-out coffee compared to dine-in. I know that two of the three Starbucks in Lincoln have drive-through windows, as do several in Omaha and I've seen them in several other towns I've lived in/passed through. The Caribou Coffees in Omaha that I've seen are mostly drive-through. Lincoln Espresso operates three drive-through only shops that I know of.

 

In my experience you have to ask for a porcelain mug when you order coffee or they're going to give it to you in the paper cup with the little sleeve. That sleeve at Scooter's is woefully inadequate as an insulating device, and it just about sears my hand off from the time I get my cup until I get up the elevator and to my desk. Occupational hazard of the coffee drinker, that, and I would never dream of crying foul to the owner because his coffee is served hot.

 

But again, the very bottom line here is that when you buy a cup of coffee you assume a risk in that it is understood that it is a hot beverage, and whether that's 200, 180, 160 or 140 degrees, you're going to get burned if it spills on you. And woe to you if you dump it on your crotch.

[knapplc]

My sparklets water dispenser is set at 195 so I can give my instant oaties every morning while I ride my chopper to work, nope it's true that 's what the salesperson said. Well, not about the m/c . Almost everyone drinks swill that is mistakenly labeled coffee. I roast fresh green coffee beans, Kenya AA for my wife, freakin' strong and Sumatran for me, weaker, but I have not done any tests on my B&D coffee maker temperature.

 

I must admit, I too was in the crowd that was against such a heinous award against Mickey D's. I hate their products but sympathized with their plight. Now I don't.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

 

 

GBR

 

This was me throwing my hands in the air as I read this:

 

Have you not read any of my posts? Coffee is a hot beverage. Industry standard states that you brew it at 195-205 for optimal flavor. The advent of press and pour-over coffees virtually assure your cup will be served at 180 degrees or thereabouts, and we don't see lawsuits against Starbucks and Peet's and the sundry other places that serve hot coffee because a reasonable person doesn't put their coffee in their crotch angling toward their potty parts and take the lid off.

 

I am talking to walls here.

[I See Red People]

Wow, didn't see an epic coffee war erupting in this thread when I clicked on it.

[rawhide]

We're a multiservice Huskerboard

We mods never have any internecine warfare going on. I'm not a wall, I'm a walleye, I've ate enough of'em.

 

GBR

[Manhattan]

So,

 

A. McDonald's has "700 complaints" and the other places don't because people who eat at McDonald's are either:

1) Retarded, or

2) Trying to navigate a vehicle around a parking lot while drinking coffee,

Meaning there was in fact nothing wrong with McDonald's Coffee and the company was just a victim of morons,

 

or

 

B. McDonald's should have had a warning that their coffee could cause severe burns, and because they didn't, they were negligent (even though everywhere else serves it nearly as hot, or by some methods, even hotter) for not pointing out this common sense concept.

 

 

 

... I'm going with A.

[carlfense]

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.

 

On the contrary. I have provided a link that shows 195-205 is the preferred temperature of brewing. Further, I have cited the growing availability of pour-over, which you can request at The Mill, Bad Robot (when it was still in business), Starbucks, Mo Java, Crescent Moon (presumably when it reopens) and sundry other places around Lincoln, at which I've personally partaken of said drink.

 

What you have not shown is that coffee is not served this hot. You are, apparently, relying on Ms. Liebeck's attorney's assertion that this is somehow out of the norm. It is not.

 

Further, your assertion that all McDonald's had to do was put a simple warning on their drink was already in place when Ms. Liebeck engaged in her dangerous method of applying cream to her beverage.

Exactly. All you've shown is that the temperatures cited are preferred for brewing . . . and all evidence available says that those brewing temperatures are extremely dangerous for serving. Saying that coffee should be brewed at one temperature in no way shows that it should be served at that temperature. Please, show me that it's common and advisable to serve coffee at those temperatures in restaurants. I doubt that you can do that.

 

I didn't say any warning would do. I said the same thing that the judge and jury said: a tiny "hot" label on coffee that is so hot that it causes third degree burns requiring skin grafts . . . when the company was well advised of this fact . . . was entirely inadequate.

 

There might be a reason why everyone is saying that their opinion is changed after hearing the facts, no?

[carlfense]

So,

 

A. McDonald's has "700 complaints" and the other places don't because people who eat at McDonald's are either:

1) Retarded, or

2) Trying to navigate a vehicle around a parking lot while drinking coffee,

Meaning there was in fact nothing wrong with McDonald's Coffee and the company was just a victim of morons,

 

or

 

B. McDonald's should have had a warning that their coffee could cause severe burns, and because they didn't, they were negligent (even though everywhere else serves it nearly as hot, or by some methods, even hotter) for not pointing out this common sense concept.

 

 

 

... I'm going with A.

 

Except the bolded section is entirely false when referring to restaurants. Other than that . . . good work.

[T_O_Bull]

I'm just so F'ing stupid I can't even cross the street.

 

How sad.

 

T_O_B

[HUSKER 37]

My sparklets water dispenser is set at 195 so I can give my instant oaties every morning while I ride my chopper to work, nope it's true that 's what the salesperson said. Well, not about the m/c . Almost everyone drinks swill that is mistakenly labeled coffee. I roast fresh green coffee beans, Kenya AA for my wife, freakin' strong and Sumatran for me, weaker, but I have not done any tests on my B&D coffee maker temperature.

 

I must admit, I too was in the crowd that was against such a heinous award against Mickey D's. I hate their products but sympathized with their plight. Now I don't.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

 

 

GBR

 

This was me throwing my hands in the air as I read this:

 

Have you not read any of my posts? Coffee is a hot beverage. Industry standard states that you brew it at 195-205 for optimal flavor. The advent of press and pour-over coffees virtually assure your cup will be served at 180 degrees or thereabouts, and we don't see lawsuits against Starbucks and Peet's and the sundry other places that serve hot coffee because a reasonable person doesn't put their coffee in their crotch angling toward their potty parts and take the lid off.

 

I am talking to walls here.

 

Actually..Your post with the graph is what convinced me that McDees was ultimately (at least 80%) responsible.

 

I still haven't really figured out how to make coffee by myself yet..I used to just boil it in a pan until a spoon would stand straight up or you could eat it with a fork...Tastes about the same to me the next day watered down and at room temperature..I'd drink a gallon of it and wouldn'd have another craving for 6-8 months.

I tried to make some at work in a fancy drip type maker last week and found out I was using about 4 times the grounds I needed to.

 

I'll take your word for it that brewing at 195 tastes better.. but when I've boiled it at 100C/212F @ STP, it seems to release more of the acids and taste slightly like an ashtray...Even so, I'd never drink it at that temp (or serve it that hot).

 

I AM tempted to go out some weekend if I can wake up before the break of noon and bring a freshly calibrated thermometer from the lab and see what the temperature is of their "brewed 195-205" is by the time it's served to me.

 

 

But out here everything's a dry heat.

[knapplc]

OK, can you guys help me call the cops? I've got three lawbreakers to report.

 

On my drive in this AM I stopped at the two coffee chains I most typically frequent. I apprised them of our conversation and asked them point blank at what temperature they brew their coffee. Both were only too willing to tell me about their misdeeds.

 

Establishment 1) Brews their coffee at about 210 degrees. The cup they poured was served to me at 197 degrees. This was out of the carafe, not a top pour. While their cup does inform me that I'm about to drink something hot, it does not warn me that I could be scalded or horrifically burned. In fact, neither establishment's cup warned of such consequences.

 

Establishment 2) Brews their coffee at 220 degrees. It's like they don't even think about the children!!!1!!eleven!!! Not only that, but the coffee they gave me was 202 degrees in the cup. That's so criminal it's astounding!

 

Finally, I came to the office and fired up my hotpot and prepped my french press. I boiled the water and put it in the carafe, waited my impatient four minutes, and then poured it into my mug. I have such callous disregard for myself that I served coffee to me at 195 degrees.

 

 

So now that we've established that coffee is routinely served at two major coffee outlets at these temps, can we stop with the notion that McDonald's was criminally negligent for serving coffee at temperatures that other coffee sellers regularly sell coffee at? Or do we just blindly believe this jury?

 

OJ was innocent, right?

[carlfense]

OK, can you guys help me call the cops? I've got three lawbreakers to report.

 

On my drive in this AM I stopped at the two coffee chains I most typically frequent. I apprised them of our conversation and asked them point blank at what temperature they brew their coffee. Both were only too willing to tell me about their misdeeds.

 

Establishment 1) Brews their coffee at about 210 degrees. The cup they poured was served to me at 197 degrees. This was out of the carafe, not a top pour. While their cup does inform me that I'm about to drink something hot, it does not warn me that I could be scalded or horrifically burned. In fact, neither establishment's cup warned of such consequences.

 

Establishment 2) Brews their coffee at 220 degrees. It's like they don't even think about the children!!!1!!eleven!!! Not only that, but the coffee they gave me was 202 degrees in the cup. That's so criminal it's astounding!

 

Finally, I came to the office and fired up my hotpot and prepped my french press. I boiled the water and put it in the carafe, waited my impatient four minutes, and then poured it into my mug. I have such callous disregard for myself that I served coffee to me at 195 degrees.

 

 

So now that we've established that coffee is routinely served at two major coffee outlets at these temps, can we stop with the notion that McDonald's was criminally negligent for serving coffee at temperatures that other coffee sellers regularly sell coffee at? Or do we just blindly believe this jury?

 

OJ was innocent, right?

 

Did you suffer an injury as a result of either cup of coffee? (If not . . . your whole post is moot.)

Were these standalone coffee houses or fast food restaurants? (As in, how sophisticated, beverage-wise, was the average customer.)

Was either coffee place aware of the serious injuries that could be caused?

Did they choose to continue this practice despite prior causation of 3rd degree burns?

 

You can be as obnoxious as you want about the whole thing but the point remains that the onus for this entire situation rests squarely on McDonalds. Pay for the poor ladies skin grafts and medical care and they would never have been on the hook for millions.

 

Here's the kicker . . . guess what those punitive damages and personal injury award resulted in? McDonalds no longer serves their coffee at dangerous temperatures and issues a warning that their coffee can cause severe injuries. OMG!!!!!eleven!!one!!! <--(to paraphrase yourself). It's amazing what a little justice can do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Finally, the OJ thing is inapplicable. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal trials is a much weightier standard than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard of civil courts. Was OJ probably guilty? Yep. The prosecution was unable to meed the evidentiary burden so he walks. The thing that REALLY shows you McDonalds guilt in this case is that they were hit with punitive damages. Punitive damages are VERY hard to get as a plaintiff . . . you have to prove a particularly egregious pattern of conduct. If this was just a straight compensatory damages claim you'd have a stronger point about this just being a sympathetic judge and jury. However, it was not just a compensatory damages claim and the very existence of the punitive damages shows that McDonalds was a serious wrongdoer.