The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Hot Coffee, a Thread About McDonalds and Its Hot Coffee
Posts
Wrong. We've addressed this dozens of times.
Once again: Cooking temperature is not the same as serving temperature.
Canned vegetables need to be heated to 250 degrees in a pressurized environment in order to kill botchulism. That does not mean that the vegetables are 250 degrees when they hit your mouth.
Cars are made of steel, which needs to be forged at over a thousand degrees.
But if your car heated to that temperature under normal operation, you would probably sue the auto maker.
Did Liebeck's lawyer sue over the brewing temperature, or the serving temperature? Because there is a huge, huge difference.
You are being a silly goose.
Not to mention you don't seem to understand the one true Scotsman fallacy, as iced coffee is indeed not a Scotsman. They are not interchangeable products, and if someone orders one in my restaurant, and I give them the other, I have given them the wrong item.
Now ignoring the silly iced coffee thing, you could claim that 180 degrees is too hot. And the response I give again is, coffee should not be served cooler than 160 degrees to be enjoyed with cream and sugar, which many people do. 160 degree coffee would still have caused burns, although less severe. If 180 degree coffee is defective because it is dangerous, so 160 degree coffee is dangerous and so defective. Therefore all hot coffee would be defective because it is dangerous. However if a product is universally dangerous, that is not a defect, that is simply an unfortunate feature of the product and as the danger of hot liquids is common knowledge, we expect people to act with apropriate caution. If they do not, no matter how tragic the consequences, the liability is their own, and not the seller of the coffee.
Just as say a tall ladder is dangerous for someone to climb up. If they fall they are likely to injure themselves, potentially quite badly. However as that height is an inherent feature of the product, and the danger is clear, we expect consumers to be wary themselves. We do not make the ladder company liable unless their ladder fails in some way. Merely having great height, and presenting a risk does not make it a failure of a ladder.
Coffee being hot enough to cause burns is an inevitable result of the way coffee is brewed and enjoyed, even at a lower 160 degrees. Having that heat and presenting a risk does not make it a failure of a cup of coffee.
--LeVar Burton
So how hot does it need to be to keep the customers happy? Because coffee that's hot enough to melt my flesh is not something that I would want to drink.
Yeah, that sounds like a very realistic scenario on how a normal person would react in that situation.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html
Please do skim through this if you're genuinely curious. Purportedly it's still just a few seconds at 160 degrees to cause nearly as bad of injuries.
It's just page after page of damning evidence against Liebeck's position as analyzed by a judge who oversaw a very similar case in Britain.
Link 1: "It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste." Does not apply to McDonalds.
Link 2: Does not specify a serving temperature, irrelevant for this discussion.
Link 3: "If brewed coffee must be "held" on a direct heat source, it should be held at 185°F, and for no longer than 20 minutes. Higher temperatures cause coffee to break down quickly, producing a bitter and flat taste." Does not apply to McDonalds.
Link 4: "If you need to keep brewed coffee warm for a longer period of time use a thermal container that will keep the coffee warm without heating." Does not apply to McDonalds.
Link 5: "That being said, 185F is too hot, even for me, a heavy coffee drinker, to enjoy" Hmm...
Link 6: Does not specify a serving temperature, irrelevant for this discussion.
Does the analysis rely on temperature alone? Because if so, that's a flawed analysis.
You can cook 10 gallons of veal stock in a 210 degree pot for 20 hours.
A common matchstick can reach temperatures well upwards of 210 degrees.
However, a common matchstick is unable to sustain that temperature for over 20 hours.
You can create third degree burns in a few seconds at 160 degrees.
However, a cup of coffee, like a match stick, has a finite amount of energy. It will cool down immediately upon contact.
So how often do people specifically ask for 185 degree coffee?
It's kind of funny watching you guys try to have it both ways.
"160 degree coffee is also hot enough to cause third degree burns! But it's not hot enough to drink!"
Uh....
Personally, I think that "temperature where coffee melts flesh" should be higher than "temperature where coffee is fit for consumption."
You and others apparently think that "temperature where coffee is fit for consumption" should be higher than "temperature where coffee melts flesh."
My rationale is that is coffee is hot enough to melt flesh, I don't want it in my mouth. What's your rationale?
The guidelines specify that coffee is this hot when it is served immediately.
McDonalds is not served immediately.
You can't argue "That's just how coffee is prepared!" when this is not how McDonalds prepares it.
That's how Liebeck reacted per the summary of events she provided the court.
One of many problems with trying to pretend her case was valid.
Secondly, it seems to me like half the problem with tort is ... well, the setup of tort itself. The idea of it being one person against another.
If serving coffee at X degrees is negligant and dangerous, is that not something that should extend beyond just the one old lady it happened to hurt?
And that's not even covering the massive power imbalances the system creates.
The fact that there exist foods traditionally served on fire doesn't mean dick as to my point, which was that preparation temperature has fuck-all to do with serving temperature, and that conflating the two is mind-crunchingly idiotic.
And your hot plate scenario will make for a brilliant counter-example just as soon as McDonalds starts serving you coffee on your very own collectable hot-plate.
(And I never said anything about being defective, so bandy that word about with someone else.)
It certainly didn't feel good, but I didn't need to go to the hospital. And it was a pretty popular breakfast place, so I somehow doubt that there were a lot of people complaining about the coffee.
Also, again, you would need to sit on that coffee for 90 seconds while sitting on a hot plate or sitting somewhere where the laws of thermodynamics don't apply in order to keep it at that temperature for longer than a second or two.
There are a lot of problems with the current set up, but a lot of them can't really be avoided without making things worse.
I mean, the whole idea of the tort system is that person (or group) A did something to person (or group) B that is not necessarily illegal, but which caused B some sort of demonstrable harm. I'm not sure of how you would address that without having it be person A versus person B. The whole nature of the complaint is one person against another.
As to your second question, what would you prefer? So a company does something wrong, and an old lady is hurt. Who would you award damages to? Everyone who's ever been a customer of the company? In the McDonalds case, should McDonalds pay out damages to everyone who's ever bought coffee from them? If so, why? The idea of tort is that they specifically hurt someone. The person receiving damages should then be the person who was actually hurt. Hence class-action cases - you bundle together a big hunk of people who have been hurt and have them sue as one. The idea is that if a corporation gets hit with a massive lawsuit and has to pay out, it'll compel them to change their policies to non-dangerous ones.
And the power imbalance isn't created by the tort system; it's already there. McDonalds is a huge corporation and Stella is a single woman no matter how you approach the issue. Best you can do is work to address that by making it feasible for one old woman to sue the massive corporation.
Certainly there are issues with the system, but you have to work within the nature of the beast itself, not scrap it and try to ignore the nature of reality itself.
I have been to many popular places with absolutely horrid coffee. Honestly, I would consider McDonalds itself a purveyor of unconscionable crimes against foodstuffs.
Basically, anedote lol.
Every cup of coffee need not be served at 180 degrees for tha to be a common and expected temperature to recieve coffee at.
This seems entirely spurious to me, as it is far longer than even Liebeck's attorneys or the attorneys in the British case claim. The court in the British case in fact found that coffee between 151-160 degrees would cause burns in a mere two seconds.
Except that preperation temperature of course does have to do with serving temperature. Coffee is regularly served right after it is brewed. There is no requirement that a business make people wait until the coffee come down to a lower temperature before serving it. We expect people to be aware of the danger, and manage the risk themselves. Every day, at every establishment that sells coffee, regardless of the circumstances surrounding this particular cup of coffee. We have a similar expectation that a nice hot bowl of soup may be served hotter than you can eat when it comes to the table, but knowing this you will take care not to spill it into your lap, and wait for it to cool to a temperature you are comfortable with.
And I don't use the word defective because you did or did not. I use it because it is the basis or the lawsuit in question. McDonalds is liable for the accident if, and only if, the coffee they served was defective.
I would like to point out, coffee is still to this day regularly served at temperatures in excess of 180 degrees! Because hot coffee is the expected state of coffee, not a defective state.
--LeVar Burton
First of all, yes in fact third degree burns, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. Still. If a defective product harms me, regardless of the level of harm, the seller is liable. If a not defective product harms me, the seller is not liable, also regardless of the level of harm
And yet again, it does apply to McDonalds whether coffee is served at 185 degrees elsewhere. Because the reason this particular cup of coffee is so hot does not matter. If 185 degree coffee is not defective when sold at Starbucks, it is equally not defective when sold at McDonalds.
--LeVar Burton
Tires have a tendency to break down on the road. That's an expected risk. But if my tires break down a lot more than normal due to a new rubber formulation, and I'm aware of the problem but I choose to ignore it, then I can still be sued.
If it's okay to serve liquor in a bar, then it's okay to serve liquor in a drive thru.
If it's okay to sell guns in a gun store, then it's okay to sell guns in a bar.
Once again, Starbucks coffee is hot because it is freshly brewed, and they add the cream for you, so you never have to open the lid. McDonalds is not freshly brewed, and you add the cream yourself while you're in your car. This is not the same.
And then a salmon farmer responds by creating salmon with toxic pink dye.
The salmon is now pink. Does that mean that the salmon is good?
No.
You can make a rule, "Fresh coffee is served hot, because that's a sign that it's only a few minutes old."
But simply making your coffee really hot doesn't mean that you're serving fresh coffee.
McDonalds heating their coffee to 185 degrees is analogous to the fisherman who dyes his salmon pink.
except that coffee needs to be brewed to a certain temperture to properly make it, and then you're stuck waiting for the coffee to cool down, while it's getting older all the time.
Edit: and McDonalds does add the cream and sugar for you now.
McDonalds did not cause their coffee to be dangerous in any way that Starbucks' coffee is not dangerous also. Your toxin example is no better when applied to salmon than when applied to beef.
The drive thru liquor example is a problem as well. They are not inexistant because of tort law, they are inexistant because of criminal law. Because selling something to you while you are in your car does not remove your responsibility for your own actions deciding how to use it. If I am selling Ginsu knives from the median at a stoplight, that does not make it my responsibility that you cut a finger off while filleting fish in your passenger seat ten minutes later.
--LeVar Burton
That's how Starbucks makes their coffee too, and it's generally ok.
That doesn't matter. If Starbucks' 185 degree coffee is not defective, neither is McDonalds', regardless of the different reason each of them is so hot.
Edit: Simply edited, "has to be so hot," to, "is so hot," for clarity's sake.
--LeVar Burton
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And without cream and stirring?
The notion of consuming a liquid that would destroy your taste buds just seems counterproductive.
Then again... Starbucks.
O_o
Seriously? Do you understand anything about cooking at all?
I guess Gordon Ramsay is a hack when he wants food to be served within a few minutes after cooking, and he'll often toss out an entire table if all the dishes can be finished at the same time. He can just leave it under a heat lamp for hours on end, and it will be just as good. There is no physical difference, whatsoever.
The 185 degree figure comes from the NCA. The NCA specifically states, "It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste." If you are maintaining the temperature via an electric burner, then you are no longer following the NCA.
Do you really honestly believe that McDonalds coffee is that hot because they brew it a few minutes before serving you, and not because they they're maintaining the temperature via electric burners?
Is dyed pink salmon is just as good as naturally pink salmon? Yes or no?
And why are they illegal?
Answer: Because we conclude that selling things at a drive thru carries a higher risk.
That's the point.
1) Starbucks serves coffee fresh. Either the coffee is brewed on the spot, or it's stored in tanks that are emptied every hour. It's hot as a result of being served fresh. McDonalds does not do this.
2) Most starbucks do not have drive thrus.
3) Starbucks adds the cream and sugar for you, meaning that you never have to open the lid. Maybe McDonalds now offers this service. They didn't do this during Stella's lawsuit.
Here's the question:
Is it irresponsible to sell scalding coffee where the customer has manually open the lid to add cream in a drive thru?
I am not asking if it's illegal. Something can be perfectly legal and still be irresponsible.
To put it another way, suppose that there were no laws against selling guns and knives in bars. Would it be responsible to sell guns and knives to drunk patrons?
I live in the Seattle area, where most of the starbucks are located in strips, inside of grocery stores, at the mall, etc. That might be because the starbucks in my area have been around for a long time, before they got into the drive thru thing.
No, it would not be responsible.
However apparently the people that run McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Starbucks, Dunn Bros., Caribou Coffee, and Subway think it is not irresponsible to sell coffee at a drive-thru, and neither do their millions of customers a day who purchase a piping hot cup. Including me not infrequently.
That's a list of the businesses within fifteen minutes of my house that do so by the way, several from multiple locations. The Subway one is super weird though, huh? What kind of a Subway has a drive-thru?
--LeVar Burton
So wait, if a ton of companies do something a certain way, it is not irresponsible by definition?
Hmm.
Good to know.
...
So?
Nope. But I find it difficult to swallow that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior if it is done safely millions of times a day. As hard to swallow as a sip of 185 degree coffee! Zingo!
--LeVar Burton