WTH???

[knapplc]

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

I did not, but then again, I didn't engage in any dangerous activity with my hot coffee. I did not place it, unlidded, in my crotch. I did not pour it over my head, and I did not attempt to juggle it. Had I done so, I would most likely have been injured. However, the blame for that injury would lie with me, not with the provider of the coffee, since I would have been handling the coffee in an unsafe manner, a manner in which it was not intended to be handled.

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

What do you take me for, sir? I will not soil myself with Quik Shop coffee, or McDonald's coffee, or any such thing. It's only bona fide coffee for this connoisseur.

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

Yes, they were. The first joint asked if I was going to sue them like McDonald's got sued, and they did so before I told them about this conversation. I'm on a first-name basis with all of the baristas and the manager there, so it was all in fun, but they were aware of the lawsuit and the temperature of their coffee, and did not seem to care.

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

Yes, they continue this practice knowing inherently that there are dangers in handling and consuming hot beverages in much the same way that every state continues to operate highways on which vehicles operate at unsafe speeds. While there are warnings on coffee products (largely due to Liebeck vs. McDonald's), there are no such warnings on the highways stating that the activity the drivers are engaged in can cause severe injury, including death. Why? Because nobody has sued a state for allowing such unsafe situations to occur; common sense tells us that driving on a highway at 60 mph is dangerous. No such warning is necessary - until someone gets killed, and a sympathetic jury declares highways unsafe. Then we'll be seeing signs galore.

Regarding me being obnoxious - I would have hoped that you would have gotten from my tone that I'm being lighthearted and jovial about this, not an asshat. If I'm coming across as an a$$, I apologize. I'm trying to have fun with this conversation, not be a jerk. Again, I apologize if I'm not coming across as intended.

 

[knapplc]

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.

OJ is directly applicable in that you had a stupid prosecution team and a jury who was intolerant of their stupidity. The fact that there were punitive damages means nothing more than the original verdict means - McDonald's defense team was dumb (which we can all agree on) and the jury was swayed by the plaintiff's attorney.

Surely we're not going to assert that because a case went one way or the other that this proves anything. It's not just about the facts. It's about the persuasive ability of the attorney as much as anything else. If it were only the facts we would have a vastly different judicial system than we have today.

 

[rawhide]

Stupido, you forgot the insert sarcasm thingie, I PITY THE FOOL.

GBR

Great try T O but I think this thread will end up with people burning themselves on hot coffee from the radiator of the car that just hit them while they crossed the road while staring at their stupid cell phone. It couldn't be a smartphone.

 

[carlfense]

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.

OJ is directly applicable in that you had a stupid prosecution team and a jury who was intolerant of their stupidity. The fact that there were punitive damages means nothing more than the original verdict means - McDonald's defense team was dumb (which we can all agree on) and the jury was swayed by the plaintiff's attorney.

Surely we're not going to assert that because a case went one way or the other that this proves anything. It's not just about the facts. It's about the persuasive ability of the attorney as much as anything else. If it were only the facts we would have a vastly different judicial system than we have today.

Regarding the bold: Actually it does. Punitive damages are only available in cases where there is particularly egregious conduct. If McDonalds had only been negligent in this case they could not be liable for punitive damages. There is a higher burden for the plaintiff to meet to prove that the defendant's conduct was so wrongful that they should be financially punished. Basically, it means that McDonalds was not just guilty . . . they were REALLY guilty.

Here's a quick guide to punitive damages in New Mexico.

The basic summary is this:

Many New Mexico personal injury claims assert a claim for punitive damages but the "malicious, willful, reckless or wanton" standard is pretty difficult to meet. In essence, the defendant's behavior must be pretty outrageous in nature to justify a punitive damages jury instruction from the court.

 

[knapplc]

Again, all that proves is that the plaintiff's attorney convinced a jury of egregious conduct. As in the case of OJ, it does not conclusively prove that such was the case. Further, as I've shown several times in this thread through links and personal ground-pounding efforts, coffee is routinely served at the very same temperature as the coffee in this case.

Precedent in case law is both set and overturned regularly. The law is not absolute, it is fluid. Simply because one attorney was able to convince one jury in one trial that hot coffee is "egregious" does not mean it truly is, or that it ever was.

By this logic you're saying that Iowa State was conclusively better than Nebraska in 2009 because on one particular Saturday they beat us. Reality tells us that there were a number of odd situations and freak occurrences that allowed the outcome of that game to happen. At the end of the season Nebraska was ranked 14th and ISU was unranked, which would tell a reasonable person that the game between ISU and NU was perhaps not indicative of reality.

 

[carlfense]

Again, all that proves is that the plaintiff's attorney convinced a jury of egregious conduct. As in the case of OJ, it does not conclusively prove that such was the case. Further, as I've shown several times in this thread through links and personal ground-pounding efforts, coffee is routinely served at the very same temperature as the coffee in this case.

Precedent in case law is both set and overturned regularly. The law is not absolute, it is fluid. Simply because one attorney was able to convince one jury in one trial that hot coffee is "egregious" does not mean it truly is, or that it ever was.

 

By this logic you're saying that Iowa State was conclusively better than Nebraska in 2009 because on one particular Saturday they beat us. Reality tells us that there were a number of odd situations and freak occurrences that allowed the outcome of that game to happen. At the end of the season Nebraska was ranked 14th and ISU was unranked, which would tell a reasonable person that the game between ISU and NU was perhaps not indicative of reality.

Huh? You don't have to tell me about the fluid nature of law . . . I'm aware.

We're discussing this one case, correct? You are saying that McDonalds did nothing wrong. I'm saying they did. The law/judge/jury in this case supports my argument. Your own experiences and anecdotal evidence from your extensive Lincoln coffee knowledge supports your argument. We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[huKSer]

**SNIP**

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.

Chem major??

BTW standard temperature is 0C, and standard pressure is at sea level - which AZ is not.

Not trying to disrespect ya, just sayin'

 

[HUSKER 37]

**SNIP**

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.

Chem major??

BTW standard temperature is 0C, and standard pressure is at sea level - which AZ is not.

Not trying to disrespect ya, just sayin'

But... I was in San Diego on that cold blistery weekend visiting this cryogenics lab...see?...Yeah..THAT'S the ticket.

And here I was, being so proud of myself and bragging to all the fellas at work about how I remembered STP stood for more than a gasoline treatment popular in the '70's...I even somehow remembered something about 273 deg.Kelvin being one of the standard conditions without having to google it..Thought fer sure I lost that braincell at the last kegger in Lincoln that I showed up to with a couple 500ml Erlenmeyer flasks to drink out of. (I hate lines).

I also thought it was my highschool Physics teacher that first taught me to misuse the term "STP" (Standard Temperature OR Pressure vs Standard Temperature AND pressure).

Technically, I think you're more right..especially when 'sipherin' volumes of gasses, but the term "STP" is often used to describe only one standard condition being met...er..approximated.

We're still at a loss as to how someone in Lincoln, Nebraska was able to heat water up to 220f...You guys brewing coffee at the Submarine races again?..Maybe inside a decompression chamber? or under a missile silo?..I did find that you could raise the boiling point of water to 220f if you increased the barometric pressure to ~35"Hg but not sure how far beneath sea level you'd have to go to get those conditions....another two tenths of an atmosphere?

Water's funny that way..you can heat it and heat it..even put it on a PHX sidewalk in July..but it won't go above 212f (or ~211.6 at Lincoln's ave. elevation, which is surprisingly only ~40' below the new Chandler/Gilbert Community College a mile away from my house) ......without changing to a gaseous state (like Kansas or Oklahoma) :LOLtartar

..It was kinda cool, though back in 11th grade when my Physics instructor got with our Chem teacher and got water to boil and freeze simultaneously in a vacuum...Whoa, Nelly!

I still say my Physics instructor and Keith Jackson were separated at birth.

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 ??? :dunno We have? , 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?

Well, if the Orange Juice was served chilled...wait..

:bs:

You expect me to believe you had enough time to visit two coffee shops before work?

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

Forget about the cops, establishment #2 should be reported to the health department for putting ethylene glycol in their water.. or for bending some mighty important Laws of Thermochemistry that I forget the names of..Or using non-calibrated thermometers.

I'll try to use my imagination and figure those fancy schmancy coffee makers are now using pressure cookers ..capable of ~17.5 psi.

Funny...As I was running some 4 month old 71 f coffee through the Atomic Absorption Spectro-thingy this morning to help decontaminate it, and thinking about this thread..I was really really tempted to take a sip.

 

[knapplc]

:bs:

You expect me to believe you had enough time to visit two coffee shops before work?

Not sure why that's hard to believe. One is right on the way to work and the other is in the lobby of my building. I got going a little earlier than usual and still got to my desk before 7am. Not that hard.

Regarding the ability to boil water at 220 degrees here in Lincoln... you've got me there. I know next to nothing about chemistry, so I'm willing to take your word for it. All I did was post what the baristas told me. I'll go home and put my kettle on to boil here in a few minutes and stick my handy-dandy little thermometer in it and see how hot it gets.

I'll admit I had no idea that water would only get so hot and no hotter at certain altitudes/pressures. Like I said, I know next to nothing about chemistry.

 

[HUSKER 37]

:bs:

You expect me to believe you had enough time to visit two coffee shops before work?

Not sure why that's hard to believe. One is right on the way to work and the other is in the lobby of my building. I got going a little earlier than usual and still got to my desk before 7am. Not that hard.

Regarding the ability to boil water at 220 degrees here in Lincoln... you've got me there. I know next to nothing about chemistry, so I'm willing to take your word for it. All I did was post what the baristas told me. I'll go home and put my kettle on to boil here in a few minutes and stick my handy-dandy little thermometer in it and see how hot it gets.

I'll admit I had no idea that water would only get so hot and no hotter at certain altitudes/pressures. Like I said, I know next to nothing about chemistry.

Yeah..My boss keeps telling everyone I know nothing about Chemistry either..And to think..This is the third place we've worked together (He was one of my sample prep girls for the Environmental Lab that moved me out here... while he was working on his Masters or Doctorate in Chem-E)..

Lucky for me he gives me a special start time (6:05am) so I won't be late for work every day.

I'll buy that you're one of those "early risers" that wake up before the fifth or sixth snooze button kill-shot.. and maybe even have time to brush your teeth AND your hairs before weaving through traffic to get to work..But how do you get an English Lawyer dude to make your Coffee?

 

[knapplc]

I'm glad the barista at the joint in my building isn't a lawyer - she wouldn't be making my coffee if she was, and she's kinda cute.

I asked her about the 220 degree thing, and she kind of got pissed. I said a buddy online told me it's a chemistry thing and that water wouldn't boil in Nebraska up to that temp because of altitude or whatever, and she said, "That's what the machine is set at" and she wouldn't say anything else. It's an industrial cooker, not a standard drip machine, so maybe it pressurizes the water. Who knows?

This AM we went to the same place I went to in example one in THIS POST and I got a drip coffee, and I asked the manager to stick a thermometer in it again, and this time it was only 170 degrees - but it was also at the end of its freshness, meaning it had been brewed about an hour ago. So in one hour it had cooled down about 30 degrees, but it was still served to me at just ten degrees below McDonald's "callous disregard for the safety of their customer" temp.

That, combined with my knowledge of how trials work, and the various conversations I've had with attorneys I rub elbows with at my gig, is what prevents me from ever buying into the notion that McDonald's was wrong to the tune of millions of dollars for serving coffee at that temperature to that lady.

 

[HUSKER 37]

I'm glad the barista at the joint in my building isn't a lawyer - she wouldn't be making my coffee if she was, and she's kinda cute.

I asked her about the 220 degree thing, and she kind of got pissed. I said a buddy online told me it's a chemistry thing and that water wouldn't boil in Nebraska up to that temp because of altitude or whatever, and she said, "That's what the machine is set at" and she wouldn't say anything else. It's an industrial cooker, not a standard drip machine, so maybe it pressurizes the water. Who knows?

This AM we went to the same place I went to in example one in THIS POST and I got a drip coffee, and I asked the manager to stick a thermometer in it again, and this time it was only 170 degrees - but it was also at the end of its freshness, meaning it had been brewed about an hour ago. So in one hour it had cooled down about 30 degrees, but it was still served to me at just ten degrees below McDonald's "callous disregard for the safety of their customer" temp.

That, combined with my knowledge of how trials work, and the various conversations I've had with attorneys I rub elbows with at my gig, is what prevents me from ever buying into the notion that McDonald's was wrong to the tune of millions of dollars for serving coffee at that temperature to that lady.

I'd bet that #2 place or any coffee place keeps heat on brewed coffee so that it's a constant temp until poured/consumed/squirted out of a tongle thingy.

So does the cute Barrister wear a powdered wig at least?

Don't tell her I said that...Don't want to get her any more upset at me, but just to be clear.

You can stick a thermometer into a pot of H2O, put it over a flame or some really hot surface, record the temp every 60 seconds, plot the readings in a graph, and I THINK you'll have a fairly linear graph up until you reach 212 at sea level (or 211.5 +/- a few tenths in LNC)...if not linear, maybe resembling the "arm" on the letter "r"..Then the graph will level off at that constant until all the water has turned to vapor..Then if the thermometer is still inside the pot and the heat source remains, your graph will point upward again. (I'll see if I can find a picture).

Either way, If her industrial coffee maker (Which I now must taste next time I get back home..hint..hint) Does indeed cook under pressure, once that pressure is released (unless you can drink it inside some pressurized chamber) Some of the coffee will vaporize, while the rest will immediately go back to 212f(+/-) and if unheated, start the cooling process...Which I hope it's allowed to cool off enough so that it doesn't burn on contact (<180f)

Either way, I'm still sneaking in an icecube so I don't cook my buds.

Edit: (My memory scares me sometimes..Why can't I remember important junk?)

And that 10 degrees you mention in your final summation, Means a lot when it's that close to the human melting point. (About tripple the allowable contact time accd to the graph you posted on pg. one)

100c=212f Water will stay at the BP temp until it all goes to a vapor state.

 

[knapplc]

170 or 180, you're still going to get third-degree burns in the event that you stick that cup of joe in your crotch at an incline toward your body, remove the lid, then proceed to clumsily dump it on your potty parts, especially if it stays on there as long as Ms. Liebeck left the coffee on her jumblies.

 

[HUSKER 37]

170 or 180, you're still going to get third-degree burns in the event that you stick that cup of joe in your crotch at an incline toward your body, remove the lid, then proceed to clumsily dump it on your potty parts, especially if it stays on there as long as Ms. Liebeck left the coffee on her jumblies.

Like who hasn't tried that?

Believe me..If I had the choice between dropping 170 or 180..I pick the 170 and the extra 0.3 seconds of cool down/ remove pants time.

Given the suspected surface area of the spill, and the lady's skin temperature, and what little I remember about fluid dynamics. 170 would cool down to a harmless 150 in half a second.

180? probably a whole two seconds to cool to 150..

 

[knapplc]

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.