First remember that temperatures for heat transfer & enthalpy are in Kelvin so 185F(358K) 150F(338K) are more similar than you assume.
Yeah, except we're not comparing their temperatures to absolute zero, we're comparing them to the temperature of the human body, because that's where the energy is going to go. Since the temperature of the human body is 98.6, that means that the difference is GREATER.
If I go to the doctor with a 104 degree fever, the doctor isn't going to say, "Well, that temperature is pretty close to normal if we measure in Kelvin." He's going to say, "Holy shit, that's not good!"
1) the volume of the coffee and the surface area it is spilled over. Twice the amount of coffee will need twice the amount of energy absorbed in order to cool it. Once again going back to the sweatpants, you're not going to get a huge amount of spread of the coffee. Its going to get sucked into a limited area and held there.
You realize that sweat pants are designed... for sweat, right? Specifically, to absorb sweat and allow it to evaporate away, resulting in heat loss? Moreover, giving that the material is soft and elastic, that means that a person has the ability to lift up her sweat pants and move them away from her skin allowing for air flow, assuming that there is enough time to do this.
For example: take a stainless steel spoon and stick it into a cup of near-boiling water. The spoon conducts heat 20-80x more efficiently than water does. But it still takes substantial time for the end of the spoon to become warm to the touch, let alone untouchable.
1) The spoon also releases heat the moment it makes contact with air.
2) The water on the spoon immediately evaporates upon contact with air, immediately cooling it down.
3) The spoon is a relatively insignificant mass compared to a cup of coffee.
The difference between first, second, and third degree burns.
We've gone from "assumption of risk" to "I no longer believe in the fundamental laws governing the nature of reality." So, uh, congratulations on that.
Temperatures for heat transfer are in Kelvin so 98.6(310K) 150F(338K) 185F(358K)are more similar than you are acting like.
O_o
That's like being a guest on "To Catch a Predator," and trying to argue with Chris Hanson, "Well, if you compare our ages to the age of the universe, we're pretty much the same age!"
Physics doesn't work like this.
That's why chefs have things like pressure cookers, and have to make adjustments for high altitude cooking, when the difference in the temperature for boiling water might only change by a few degrees.
Heat transfers until it finds equilibrium. The equilibrium is essentially the average between the cooler object and the warmer object when you factor in mass. Comparing both temperatures to absolute zero is irrelevant.
The difference between first, second, and third degree burns.
We've gone from "assumption of risk" to "I no longer believe in the fundamental laws governing the nature of reality." So, uh, congratulations on that.
Temperature variations don't matter in food preparation because we're going to measure everything in kelvin, but serve me coffee that won't burn me and I'll kill you.
The difference between first, second, and third degree burns.
We've gone from "assumption of risk" to "I no longer believe in the fundamental laws governing the nature of reality." So, uh, congratulations on that.
Temperature variations don't matter in food preparation because we're going to measure everything in kelvin, but serve me coffee that won't burn me and I'll kill you.
If you measure my lifespan in comparison to the entire measurement of time itself, it barely counts as murder, so you should probably get away with it.
Well now you're just being silly. There is a reason the temperature rule applies. Because it means that the consumer of a purchased cup of coffee can expect it to arrive at a certain temperaure, and therefore have a certain level of risk.
So the reason that the coffee is at that temperature is so that the customer can expect it to be at that temperature?
You realize that you didn't actually answer anything, right?
I did in fact. The hamburger is dangerous because it was cooked to less than 165 degrees. The usual reason for that is taste and texture. However if I am somewhere that cooked it to less than 165 degrees for some other completely different and arbitrary reason, I am at the same risk, I know it, and I must make my decisions accordingly. Just as with coffee, it is regularly served directly after brewing at 180 degrees and there is an according risk. If I am somewhere such as McDonalds where they serve coffee at 180 degrees for some other arbitrary reason the risk is still the same, and I must still behave accordingly. The specific reason for the risk is irrelelvant. What is relevant is that because of the general reason, I must be cautious of all cups of coffee I buy. Like I said, unless you are suggesting that this case was actionable because Mrs. Liebeck knew the coffee was not brewed freshly and so though she did not have to take as much caution. Which no one has ever suggested, in the case, or here.
If you would like a meat example: a really good hamburger is cooked medium.
Yeah, because a hamburger cooked at medium has a different molecular structure, which results in different flavor and texture.
You have failed to demonstrate that this applies to coffee.
The temperature at which coffee is brewed affects the flavor and aroma, just as the temperature to which you cook a hamburger affect its taste and texture. Really though, that's not important. The analogy was again, merely meant to be illustrative of the point, not the point itself, and was only presented as something closer than your quite spurious one.
MentalExercise on
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Temperatures for heat transfer are in Kelvin so 98.6(310K) 150F(338K) 185F(358K)are more similar than you are acting like.
tinwhiskers, I want you to think really hard about this sentence. I am sure you can figure out what's wrong with it if you engage all of your considerable brainpower.
Everyone take two seconds to think about what it is you are trying to accomplish here.
The real issue is how popular misconceptions about the McDonald's hot coffee case (ie, she was holding coffee between her legs while driving, she sued for millions of dollars, the burns she suffered were in line with what's probably happened to everyone at some point when they spill a cup of hot liquid) are commonly used to demonstrate that tort law in the United States is totally broken.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I did in fact. The hamburger is dangerous because it was cooked to less than 165 degrees.
Dude... we're not talking about hamburgers. We're talking about coffee.
And even if we were taking about hamburgers, it would still be irrelevant, because hamburgers are allowed the chance to cool down and rest after you cook them. You cook them to 165 degrees to kill the bacteria. From there, you can lower them down to 140 degrees, and it would still be okay.
The temperature at which coffee is brewed affects the flavor and aroma,
The keyword there is "brewed."
Not "served."
No one is disputing the fact that coffee should be brewed at high temperatures.
Temperatures for heat transfer are in Kelvin so 98.6(310K) 150F(338K) 185F(358K)are more similar than you are acting like.
tinwhiskers, I want you to think really hard about this sentence. I am sure you can figure out what's wrong with it if you engage all of your considerable brainpower.
edit: beat'd.
If you play the Rodney King tapes backwards, it looks like they're helping him on his feet.
Everyone take two seconds to think about what it is you are trying to accomplish here.
The real issue is how popular misconceptions about the McDonald's hot coffee case (ie, she was holding coffee between her legs while driving, she sued for millions of dollars, the burns she suffered were in line with what's probably happened to everyone at some point when they spill a cup of hot liquid) are commonly used to demonstrate that tort law in the United States is totally broken.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
The thing is, this is a geek forum, and we're now in the realm of arguing physics vs. not-physics.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
I did in fact. The hamburger is dangerous because it was cooked to less than 165 degrees.
Dude... we're not talking about hamburgers. We're talking about coffee.
And even if we were taking about hamburgers, it would still be irrelevant, because hamburgers are allowed the chance to cool down and rest after you cook them. You cook them to 165 degrees to kill the bacteria. From there, you can lower them down to 140 degrees, and it would still be okay.
The temperature at which coffee is brewed affects the flavor and aroma,
The keyword there is "brewed."
Not "served."
No one is disputing the fact that coffee should be brewed at high temperatures.
Irrelevant, because McDonalds doesn't do this. They store their coffee in heated vessels for long periods of time, which the NCA strictly recommends against doing.
3) You as the purchaser of the coffee cannot know how long ago brewing occurred
Irrelevant, because McDonalds doesn't leave the coffee out and allow the coffee to cool on it's own, they keep the coffee in heated vessels to maintain temperature.
I had assumed there was a concession that coffee is regularly served at or above 180 degrees. It is. Still. Even after the Liebeck case.
And yet again, even if it weren't, coffee is essentially never served below 160 degrees, where a minimum of second degree burns would still have occurred, and would still have been actionable under the same terms. Which is why I am saying that severe burns are an inherent danger to coffee, and the fact that these burns were more severe than common does not make the coffee defective.
You realize that sweat pants are designed... for sweat, right? Specifically, to absorb sweat and allow it to evaporate away, resulting in heat loss? Moreover, giving that the material is soft and elastic, that means that a person has the ability to lift up her sweat pants and move them away from her skin allowing for air flow, assuming that there is enough time to do this.
you realize sweat pants don't actually cause evaporation right? unless the lady is hotter than the coffee she isn't evaporating anything. The pants acted like a sponge, soaking up the coffee, keeping it more concentrated(compared to say a rubber suit that absorbs no water), more energy in a smaller area.
For example: take a stainless steel spoon and stick it into a cup of near-boiling water. The spoon conducts heat 20-80x more efficiently than water does. But it still takes substantial time for the end of the spoon to become warm to the touch, let alone untouchable.
1) The spoon also releases heat the moment it makes contact with air.
2) The water on the spoon immediately evaporates upon contact with air, immediately cooling it down.
3) The spoon is a relatively insignificant mass compared to a cup of coffee.
The specific heat of water is 1 BTU/ LB degree F. An ounce of water is ~1 oz in weight, so a 16 oz coffee chilled from 150 degrees to 140 requires ~10 BTUs transferred. Lets say this takes place inside the 2 second window not burning her. That means the cooling rate of 150 degree coffee is 18,000 BTU's an hour.
And how much of that heat is lost to the air?[/QUOTE]
You really missed the spoon example. Even under ideal conditions, aka a low mass(3), metal item that has a low specific heat and high conductivity, you don't reach thermal equilibrium instantly. The entire point of the example was to show that heat doesn't instantly flow from 1 item "the water" to another "the spoon". I don't know what you're contesting about the example.
as for the air, air has a specific heat of .018 BTUs per cubic foot. So say 1/2 a cubic foot of crotch air(a lot), raise it 60 degrees(80F-->140F), the air takes .54 of those BTUs. So the "new number" becomes, 17,028 BTU/hour into the crotch.
OP here, Please stop talking about the ideal temperature of coffee. I did not post this so that we could discuss thermodynamics, if you guys want to make a thread on that go right ahead.
I had assumed there was a concession that coffee is regularly served at or above 180 degrees. It is. Still. Even after the Liebeck case.
And yet again, even if it weren't, coffee is essentially never served below 160 degrees, where a minimum of second degree burns would still have occurred, and would still have been actionable under the same terms. Which is why I am saying that severe burns are an inherent danger to coffee, and the fact that these burns were more severe than common does not make the coffee defective.
It's not enough to simply say "coffee is regularly served at that temperature."
Calamari is regularly served slimy with the coating falling off, but that doesn't mean that it's something we should aim for. And if it turned out that serving calamari that way resulted in a much greater risk of injury, I would say that we should stop.
OP here, Please stop talking about the ideal temperature of coffee. I did not post this so that we could discuss thermodynamics, if you guys want to make a thread on that go right ahead.
I think our main problem is, we unfortunately don't have anyone to argue the pro-tort reform side, even as a devil's advocate.
I had assumed there was a concession that coffee is regularly served at or above 180 degrees. It is. Still. Even after the Liebeck case.
And yet again, even if it weren't, coffee is essentially never served below 160 degrees, where a minimum of second degree burns would still have occurred, and would still have been actionable under the same terms. Which is why I am saying that severe burns are an inherent danger to coffee, and the fact that these burns were more severe than common does not make the coffee defective.
It's not enough to simply say "coffee is regularly served at that temperature."
Calamari is regularly served slimy with the coating falling off, but that doesn't mean that it's something we should aim for. And if it turned out that serving calamari that way resulted in a much greater risk of injury, I would say that we should stop.
You seem to not be aware of this. It does matter. For McDonalds to be negligent, they have to have been serving a defective product. However, if they were serving a product as it is regularly served, that product is not defective, it is inherently dangerous. In which case caveat emptor.
Edit: Having fun, but gotta feed the twins! Be back later though!
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
I had assumed there was a concession that coffee is regularly served at or above 180 degrees. It is. Still. Even after the Liebeck case.
And yet again, even if it weren't, coffee is essentially never served below 160 degrees, where a minimum of second degree burns would still have occurred, and would still have been actionable under the same terms. Which is why I am saying that severe burns are an inherent danger to coffee, and the fact that these burns were more severe than common does not make the coffee defective.
It's not enough to simply say "coffee is regularly served at that temperature."
Calamari is regularly served slimy with the coating falling off, but that doesn't mean that it's something we should aim for. And if it turned out that serving calamari that way resulted in a much greater risk of injury, I would say that we should stop.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
OP here, Please stop talking about the ideal temperature of coffee. I did not post this so that we could discuss thermodynamics, if you guys want to make a thread on that go right ahead.
I think our main problem is, we unfortunately don't have anyone to argue the pro-tort reform side, even as a devil's advocate.
The Edwards example is the best I know of from the pro-reform side(that he was a democrat I'm sure has no bearing on it). He suede public services(cost to everybody), the suites were won with a large amount of lawyer theatrics, despite having no scientific-evidence to back them, and now there have been thousands of unnecessary surgeries some of which invariably had complications, because the doctors feel the need to CYA, against a malpractice suite of the type he was running.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
Wrong.
The suit was to determine whether or not the danger of such severe burns (as opposed to milder burns, which are without a doubt reasonably expected) was actually readily apparent.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
Not necessarily. A lawsuit can be decided for the defense without being frivolous. Frivolous means that there was only the mostly tenuous legal standing, while simultaneously asking for an unreasonable settlement.
I have finally thought of a general tort reform point though (and the twins fell back asleep, for a few minutes at least, fingers crossed). When someone brings lawsuits against three or four people, and all but one of them are dismissed, that does not necessarily make it a frivolous lawsuit. If it is unclear who exactly bears responsibility, or who bears the most responsibility, it is often best to file multiple suits, and let it get hashed out which should be dismissed and which should proceed to a trial.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
Wrong.
The suit was to determine whether or not the danger of such severe burns (as opposed to milder burns, which are without a doubt reasonably expected) was actually readily apparent.
And it was, unless you assume every cup of coffee you are handed has been sitting around. Because any fresh brewed cup will be as hot.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
Incredibly, painfully wrong. A frivolous lawsuit is one where there is absolutely no merit to the case, most courts have methods to punish Plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits. Just because you say "I side with the Defendant" does not mean you believe the lawsuit is frivolous.
Frivolous would be "Not only do I side with the Defendant, but it is so clear there is absolutely no legal merit to this case it should be dismissed out of hand and the Plaintiff should be sanctioned for it."
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
Also incredibly, painfully wrong. Knives are intended to cut, coffee is not "intended" to burn. A ladder breaking because its "too tall" is a structural issue, if a ladder manufacturer makes a ladder that is too tall to bear the weight the ladder is advertised to bear, then yes the ladder might break and injure a user and a tort could result, but that's also different as the ladder is likely being used for its intended purpose.
There's no reason to try to make an analogy for this case, it doesn't need one.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
OP here, Please stop talking about the ideal temperature of coffee. I did not post this so that we could discuss thermodynamics, if you guys want to make a thread on that go right ahead.
I think our main problem is, we unfortunately don't have anyone to argue the pro-tort reform side, even as a devil's advocate.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
Wrong.
The suit was to determine whether or not the danger of such severe burns (as opposed to milder burns, which are without a doubt reasonably expected) was actually readily apparent.
And it was, unless you assume every cup of coffee you are handed has been sitting around. Because any fresh brewed cup will be as hot.
And I (and the jury) disagree. Burns so severe as to require debridement and two years of care are not an expected or acceptable outcome of an event that's as statistically probable as somebody spilling coffee.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
Second degree burns are still actionable.
Edit: a'right, baby feedin time for real now!
Second
Degree
Burns
are
not
Third
Degree
Burns
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
Just because any kind of harm is possible does not mean the company is liable. Its possible you might get indigestion when you eat at McDonalds, its also possible you might get horrible food poisoning, but just because both of them are "upset tummies" doesn't mean they're both equally valid lawsuits.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
Second degree burns are still actionable.
Edit: a'right, baby feedin time for real now!
Second
Degree
Burns
are
not
Third
Degree
Burns
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
If coffee is brewed at 3rd degree burn temperatures, is it reasonable to expect the coffee to never be at a 3rd degree burn temperature when you get it?
1) Coffee is made with water at a temperature up to 212F(while 212 is not ideal for flavor arguing 212 vs 205 vs 190 for brewing temp is non-consequential as any of them will cause sever injury), but these extreme temperatures are the norm.
2)Serving coffee directly from brewing(or so close that temperature changes are within the range of brewing temps and other variables) is a normally acceptable practice. In fact freshly brewed is a desirable trait for coffee.
3) You as the purchaser of the coffee cannot know how long ago brewing occurred, along with all the other variables associated with the change in the coffees temperature from the brewing temperature(which you are also unaware of).
Therefore: the reasonable expectation for the temperature of the coffee is anywhere up to the brewing temperature..
Pick a point, and refute it. Why would it be unreasonable to expect coffee to be that hot?
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
Second degree burns are still actionable.
Edit: a'right, baby feedin time for real now!
Second
Degree
Burns
are
not
Third
Degree
Burns
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
If coffee is brewed at 3rd degree burn temperatures, is it reasonable to expect the coffee to never be at a 3rd degree burn temperature when you get it?
1) Coffee is made with water at a temperature up to 212F(while 212 is not ideal for flavor arguing 212 vs 205 vs 190 for brewing temp is non-consequential as any of them will cause sever injury), but these extreme temperatures are the norm.
2)Serving coffee directly from brewing(or so close that temperature changes are within the range of brewing temps and other variables) is a normally acceptable practice. In fact freshly brewed is a desirable trait for coffee.
3) You as the purchaser of the coffee cannot know how long ago brewing occurred, along with all the other variables associated with the change in the coffees temperature from the brewing temperature(which you are also unaware of).
Therefore: the reasonable expectation for the temperature of the coffee is anywhere up to the brewing temperature..
Pick a point, and refute it. Why would it be unreasonable to expect coffee to be that hot?
Because the average person has spilled hot coffee, tea, soup, or other liquids on themselves more than once, and probably walked away with a first degree burn and maybe a small second degree burn. It seems likely that the injuries that Liebeck sustained were so far beyond what any of the jury had experienced from similar spills that they found them to be beyond what any of them would expect. That's speculation, though.
I don't need that, I just need to show that preference is at a temperature that will cause burns, which has been done, ad naseum.
See 18,000 BTUs to crotch above.
Putting your hand on a gas flame is not equivalent to spilling coffee on yourself. Because the gas flame burns at a much higher temperature, and can sustain that temperature for a much longer period of time.
You're trying to throw out technical terms about BTU's when you haven't even shown a grasp of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, and when you resort to inane arguments like "well, the difference in temperature seems small when you measure it in kelvins!"
150 degree submersion will result in burns in 2 seconds, where as 140 degree submersion will result in burns in 6 seconds.
If a 10 degree increase in temperature can reduce the burn time by 66%, then why do you assume that a 35 degree increase in temperature on top of that will have an insignificant effect?
In order for the "18,000 BTU" figure to be meaningful, you would first need a pan with super even heating. The moment the pan reaches 98.6 degrees, you place both hands on it. Will this pan give you 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? Probably not.
And of course, this is only assuming that a full pound of liquid is transferring it's heat capacity. If 3/4 of that amount spills on the floor, then your numbers would have to change accordingly.
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
Even had the jury found for her, given less severe injuries it's highly likely that they'd have not awarded punitive damages and instead awarded actual medical expenses.
Everyone take two seconds to think about what it is you are trying to accomplish here.
The real issue is how popular misconceptions about the McDonald's hot coffee case (ie, she was holding coffee between her legs while driving, she sued for millions of dollars, the burns she suffered were in line with what's probably happened to everyone at some point when they spill a cup of hot liquid) are commonly used to demonstrate that tort law in the United States is totally broken.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
The largest problem is popular culture is "zomg dumb lady got $2M for spilling coffee on herself." It is an affront to our puritan work ethic that you can become rich by being dumb. Nevermind the fact that she didn't actually get $2M, of course. And nevermind the fact that the $2M number was calibrated to be meaningful to a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and the fact it was awarded to an individual (where it is a large sum) was just a function of the fact that we haven't come up with anywhere better for it to go.
Lady "got rich" (she didn't) for being "dumb" (arguable that she wasn't), fucktards can't handle that.
If McDonald's had simply been fined $2M by the government, I'm willing to bet that the public outrage (at the time, and over the years as the legend persisted) would have been reduced significantly.
Because the average person has spilled hot coffee, tea, soup, or other liquids on themselves more than once, and probably walked away with a first degree burn and maybe a small second degree burn. It seems likely that the injuries that Liebeck sustained were so far beyond what any of the jury had experienced from similar spills that they found them to be beyond what any of them would expect. That's speculation, though.
I quite agree that that is a big part of the reason for the jury ruling to way it did and peoples' opinion on McDonalds being liable. I would say though that the primary difference here is that she spilled it in her lap, in a bucket seat, while wearing sweatpants, and being unable to move, causing the liquid to maintain contact and have limited other places to release heat. 180 degree liquid spilled across the skin would have caused minimal damage, while 160 degree liquid maintaining contact would have caused second degree burns minimally and probably still third degree burns, although less severe. The type of accident, rather than the temperature of the coffee, was the most important element.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
Second degree burns are still actionable.
Edit: a'right, baby feedin time for real now!
Second
Degree
Burns
are
not
Third
Degree
Burns
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
Just because any kind of harm is possible does not mean the company is liable. Its possible you might get indigestion when you eat at McDonalds, its also possible you might get horrible food poisoning, but just because both of them are "upset tummies" doesn't mean they're both equally valid lawsuits.
I think you are not understanding how this works. Again, if the product is defective, and being defective caused an injury McDonalds is liable for that injury regardless of the degree of the injury. If the product is dangerous and likely to cause severe injury, but is not defective, McDonalds would not be liable, even if the injury caused is a level more severe than commonly expected.
And on top of that, 180 degrees is not an unusual temperature at which to serve coffee, and it is incumbent on the consumer to be aware of the dangers of such a common but dangerous item.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
1) Would you care to cite proof that this is the case when you spill the liquid, and not just when you immerse a body part in it?
2) 2nd degree burns, while bad, are a significantly different and less serious beast than 3rd degree burns.
I think you are not understanding how this works. Again, if the product is defective, and being defective caused an injury McDonalds is liable for that injury regardless of the degree of the injury. If the product is dangerous and likely to cause severe injury, but is not defective, McDonalds would not be liable, even if the injury caused is a level more severe than commonly expected.
And on top of that, 180 degrees is not an unusual temperature at which to serve coffee, and it is incumbent on the consumer to be aware of the dangers of such a common but dangerous item.
The temperature might not be unusual on it's own. However, serving coffee in a drive thru represents a special circumstance. That's one reason why we don't have drive thru liquor, even though bars sell liquor all the time.
The liquor itself may not be "defective," but serving people open liquor in a drive-thru window certainly is.
Posts
Yeah, except we're not comparing their temperatures to absolute zero, we're comparing them to the temperature of the human body, because that's where the energy is going to go. Since the temperature of the human body is 98.6, that means that the difference is GREATER.
If I go to the doctor with a 104 degree fever, the doctor isn't going to say, "Well, that temperature is pretty close to normal if we measure in Kelvin." He's going to say, "Holy shit, that's not good!"
You realize that sweat pants are designed... for sweat, right? Specifically, to absorb sweat and allow it to evaporate away, resulting in heat loss? Moreover, giving that the material is soft and elastic, that means that a person has the ability to lift up her sweat pants and move them away from her skin allowing for air flow, assuming that there is enough time to do this.
1) The spoon also releases heat the moment it makes contact with air.
2) The water on the spoon immediately evaporates upon contact with air, immediately cooling it down.
3) The spoon is a relatively insignificant mass compared to a cup of coffee.
160 degrees is not 185 degrees
The laws of thermodynamics
The difference between first, second, and third degree burns.
We've gone from "assumption of risk" to "I no longer believe in the fundamental laws governing the nature of reality." So, uh, congratulations on that.
O_o
That's like being a guest on "To Catch a Predator," and trying to argue with Chris Hanson, "Well, if you compare our ages to the age of the universe, we're pretty much the same age!"
Physics doesn't work like this.
That's why chefs have things like pressure cookers, and have to make adjustments for high altitude cooking, when the difference in the temperature for boiling water might only change by a few degrees.
Heat transfers until it finds equilibrium. The equilibrium is essentially the average between the cooler object and the warmer object when you factor in mass. Comparing both temperatures to absolute zero is irrelevant.
Temperature variations don't matter in food preparation because we're going to measure everything in kelvin, but serve me coffee that won't burn me and I'll kill you.
If you measure my lifespan in comparison to the entire measurement of time itself, it barely counts as murder, so you should probably get away with it.
I did in fact. The hamburger is dangerous because it was cooked to less than 165 degrees. The usual reason for that is taste and texture. However if I am somewhere that cooked it to less than 165 degrees for some other completely different and arbitrary reason, I am at the same risk, I know it, and I must make my decisions accordingly. Just as with coffee, it is regularly served directly after brewing at 180 degrees and there is an according risk. If I am somewhere such as McDonalds where they serve coffee at 180 degrees for some other arbitrary reason the risk is still the same, and I must still behave accordingly. The specific reason for the risk is irrelelvant. What is relevant is that because of the general reason, I must be cautious of all cups of coffee I buy. Like I said, unless you are suggesting that this case was actionable because Mrs. Liebeck knew the coffee was not brewed freshly and so though she did not have to take as much caution. Which no one has ever suggested, in the case, or here.
--LeVar Burton
tinwhiskers, I want you to think really hard about this sentence. I am sure you can figure out what's wrong with it if you engage all of your considerable brainpower.
edit: beat'd.
The real issue is how popular misconceptions about the McDonald's hot coffee case (ie, she was holding coffee between her legs while driving, she sued for millions of dollars, the burns she suffered were in line with what's probably happened to everyone at some point when they spill a cup of hot liquid) are commonly used to demonstrate that tort law in the United States is totally broken.
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that the jury got it wrong in this case, and that McDonald's should not have been held liable. The lawsuit was still far, FAR from the pinnacle of frivolous lawsuits that it is viewed as in popular culture, which is really what the movie is trying to address, as far as I can tell.
Dude... we're not talking about hamburgers. We're talking about coffee.
And even if we were taking about hamburgers, it would still be irrelevant, because hamburgers are allowed the chance to cool down and rest after you cook them. You cook them to 165 degrees to kill the bacteria. From there, you can lower them down to 140 degrees, and it would still be okay.
The keyword there is "brewed."
Not "served."
No one is disputing the fact that coffee should be brewed at high temperatures.
If you play the Rodney King tapes backwards, it looks like they're helping him on his feet.
The thing is, this is a geek forum, and we're now in the realm of arguing physics vs. not-physics.
I'd like to think that's a given, considering the circumstances of the current debate, but since we're currently wondering whether heat works or not I'm not so sure.
I haven't heard anyone (in this thread) seriously argue that the case was frivolous. I'd love to see somebody try, even a remote understanding of the facts of the case should establish that it falls within the scope of a completely reasonable lawsuit, regardless of your opinion on the verdict.
Given this quote:
I had assumed there was a concession that coffee is regularly served at or above 180 degrees. It is. Still. Even after the Liebeck case.
And yet again, even if it weren't, coffee is essentially never served below 160 degrees, where a minimum of second degree burns would still have occurred, and would still have been actionable under the same terms. Which is why I am saying that severe burns are an inherent danger to coffee, and the fact that these burns were more severe than common does not make the coffee defective.
--LeVar Burton
you realize sweat pants don't actually cause evaporation right? unless the lady is hotter than the coffee she isn't evaporating anything. The pants acted like a sponge, soaking up the coffee, keeping it more concentrated(compared to say a rubber suit that absorbs no water), more energy in a smaller area.
1) The spoon also releases heat the moment it makes contact with air.
2) The water on the spoon immediately evaporates upon contact with air, immediately cooling it down.
3) The spoon is a relatively insignificant mass compared to a cup of coffee.
And how much of that heat is lost to the air?[/QUOTE]
You really missed the spoon example. Even under ideal conditions, aka a low mass(3), metal item that has a low specific heat and high conductivity, you don't reach thermal equilibrium instantly. The entire point of the example was to show that heat doesn't instantly flow from 1 item "the water" to another "the spoon". I don't know what you're contesting about the example.
as for the air, air has a specific heat of .018 BTUs per cubic foot. So say 1/2 a cubic foot of crotch air(a lot), raise it 60 degrees(80F-->140F), the air takes .54 of those BTUs. So the "new number" becomes, 17,028 BTU/hour into the crotch.
It's not enough to simply say "coffee is regularly served at that temperature."
Calamari is regularly served slimy with the coating falling off, but that doesn't mean that it's something we should aim for. And if it turned out that serving calamari that way resulted in a much greater risk of injury, I would say that we should stop.
I think our main problem is, we unfortunately don't have anyone to argue the pro-tort reform side, even as a devil's advocate.
--LeVar Burton
You seem to not be aware of this. It does matter. For McDonalds to be negligent, they have to have been serving a defective product. However, if they were serving a product as it is regularly served, that product is not defective, it is inherently dangerous. In which case caveat emptor.
Edit: Having fun, but gotta feed the twins! Be back later though!
--LeVar Burton
Actually everyone arguing el jeffe's B proposition is arguing its frivolous.
It was a lawsuit for damages because of an injury cause by a readily apparent danger of an every-day object.
Man cuts self with knife, its too sharp.
Man falls off ladder, breaks ankle, its too tall.
Are all functionally identical suits.
So if it is impossible to serve desirable coffee at a temperature that will not cause burns? No coffee for anyone?
3DS FC: 2148-8300-8608 WiiU: AgahnimD
Do you have any studies showing that the majority of people prefer to drink their coffee at 185 degrees?
The Edwards example is the best I know of from the pro-reform side(that he was a democrat I'm sure has no bearing on it). He suede public services(cost to everybody), the suites were won with a large amount of lawyer theatrics, despite having no scientific-evidence to back them, and now there have been thousands of unnecessary surgeries some of which invariably had complications, because the doctors feel the need to CYA, against a malpractice suite of the type he was running.
Wrong.
The suit was to determine whether or not the danger of such severe burns (as opposed to milder burns, which are without a doubt reasonably expected) was actually readily apparent.
Not necessarily. A lawsuit can be decided for the defense without being frivolous. Frivolous means that there was only the mostly tenuous legal standing, while simultaneously asking for an unreasonable settlement.
I have finally thought of a general tort reform point though (and the twins fell back asleep, for a few minutes at least, fingers crossed). When someone brings lawsuits against three or four people, and all but one of them are dismissed, that does not necessarily make it a frivolous lawsuit. If it is unclear who exactly bears responsibility, or who bears the most responsibility, it is often best to file multiple suits, and let it get hashed out which should be dismissed and which should proceed to a trial.
--LeVar Burton
I don't need that, I just need to show that preference is at a temperature that will cause burns, which has been done, ad naseum.
See 18,000 BTUs to crotch above.
And it was, unless you assume every cup of coffee you are handed has been sitting around. Because any fresh brewed cup will be as hot.
Incredibly, painfully wrong. A frivolous lawsuit is one where there is absolutely no merit to the case, most courts have methods to punish Plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits. Just because you say "I side with the Defendant" does not mean you believe the lawsuit is frivolous.
Frivolous would be "Not only do I side with the Defendant, but it is so clear there is absolutely no legal merit to this case it should be dismissed out of hand and the Plaintiff should be sanctioned for it."
Also incredibly, painfully wrong. Knives are intended to cut, coffee is not "intended" to burn. A ladder breaking because its "too tall" is a structural issue, if a ladder manufacturer makes a ladder that is too tall to bear the weight the ladder is advertised to bear, then yes the ladder might break and injure a user and a tort could result, but that's also different as the ladder is likely being used for its intended purpose.
There's no reason to try to make an analogy for this case, it doesn't need one.
Of course not. But as I have brought up, it should be served at a minimum of 160 degrees, so that if you want cream and sugar it will still be nice and piping hot when you drink it closer to 150 degrees.
That 160 degree temperature would still have been enough to cause a minimum of second degree burns.
Second degree burns are still actionable.
Edit: a'right, baby feedin time for real now!
--LeVar Burton
you may indeed be correct
And I (and the jury) disagree. Burns so severe as to require debridement and two years of care are not an expected or acceptable outcome of an event that's as statistically probable as somebody spilling coffee.
I'd love to hear your standard for "shown ad naseum."
Please, humor us.
Second
Degree
Burns
are
not
Third
Degree
Burns
also, 160 is not 185, etc. etc. If the woman had appeared before the jury with significantly less vicious injuries, would they have still found in her favor? A juror can very easily hold that "getting a burn from coffee" is reasonable, whereas "getting a burn from coffee that requires skin grafts" is unreasonable.
Just because any kind of harm is possible does not mean the company is liable. Its possible you might get indigestion when you eat at McDonalds, its also possible you might get horrible food poisoning, but just because both of them are "upset tummies" doesn't mean they're both equally valid lawsuits.
If coffee is brewed at 3rd degree burn temperatures, is it reasonable to expect the coffee to never be at a 3rd degree burn temperature when you get it?
Pick a point, and refute it. Why would it be unreasonable to expect coffee to be that hot?
Because the average person has spilled hot coffee, tea, soup, or other liquids on themselves more than once, and probably walked away with a first degree burn and maybe a small second degree burn. It seems likely that the injuries that Liebeck sustained were so far beyond what any of the jury had experienced from similar spills that they found them to be beyond what any of them would expect. That's speculation, though.
Putting your hand on a gas flame is not equivalent to spilling coffee on yourself. Because the gas flame burns at a much higher temperature, and can sustain that temperature for a much longer period of time.
You're trying to throw out technical terms about BTU's when you haven't even shown a grasp of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, and when you resort to inane arguments like "well, the difference in temperature seems small when you measure it in kelvins!"
150 degree submersion will result in burns in 2 seconds, where as 140 degree submersion will result in burns in 6 seconds.
If a 10 degree increase in temperature can reduce the burn time by 66%, then why do you assume that a 35 degree increase in temperature on top of that will have an insignificant effect?
In order for the "18,000 BTU" figure to be meaningful, you would first need a pan with super even heating. The moment the pan reaches 98.6 degrees, you place both hands on it. Will this pan give you 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? Probably not.
And of course, this is only assuming that a full pound of liquid is transferring it's heat capacity. If 3/4 of that amount spills on the floor, then your numbers would have to change accordingly.
Even had the jury found for her, given less severe injuries it's highly likely that they'd have not awarded punitive damages and instead awarded actual medical expenses.
The largest problem is popular culture is "zomg dumb lady got $2M for spilling coffee on herself." It is an affront to our puritan work ethic that you can become rich by being dumb. Nevermind the fact that she didn't actually get $2M, of course. And nevermind the fact that the $2M number was calibrated to be meaningful to a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and the fact it was awarded to an individual (where it is a large sum) was just a function of the fact that we haven't come up with anywhere better for it to go.
Lady "got rich" (she didn't) for being "dumb" (arguable that she wasn't), fucktards can't handle that.
If McDonald's had simply been fined $2M by the government, I'm willing to bet that the public outrage (at the time, and over the years as the legend persisted) would have been reduced significantly.
I quite agree that that is a big part of the reason for the jury ruling to way it did and peoples' opinion on McDonalds being liable. I would say though that the primary difference here is that she spilled it in her lap, in a bucket seat, while wearing sweatpants, and being unable to move, causing the liquid to maintain contact and have limited other places to release heat. 180 degree liquid spilled across the skin would have caused minimal damage, while 160 degree liquid maintaining contact would have caused second degree burns minimally and probably still third degree burns, although less severe. The type of accident, rather than the temperature of the coffee, was the most important element.
However yet again:
I think you are not understanding how this works. Again, if the product is defective, and being defective caused an injury McDonalds is liable for that injury regardless of the degree of the injury. If the product is dangerous and likely to cause severe injury, but is not defective, McDonalds would not be liable, even if the injury caused is a level more severe than commonly expected.
And on top of that, 180 degrees is not an unusual temperature at which to serve coffee, and it is incumbent on the consumer to be aware of the dangers of such a common but dangerous item.
--LeVar Burton
1) Would you care to cite proof that this is the case when you spill the liquid, and not just when you immerse a body part in it?
2) 2nd degree burns, while bad, are a significantly different and less serious beast than 3rd degree burns.
The temperature might not be unusual on it's own. However, serving coffee in a drive thru represents a special circumstance. That's one reason why we don't have drive thru liquor, even though bars sell liquor all the time.
The liquor itself may not be "defective," but serving people open liquor in a drive-thru window certainly is.