Properly brewed as in- you must hit a certain temperature threshold or else you fail to unlock certain important chemicals from the coffee beans and the coffee can be accurately described as improperly brewed. People keep mentioning this and you keep pretending it hasn't been mentioned.
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.
Likewise worth mentioning again that when you order hot coffee it's reasonable to expect it to be dangerously hot, and at that point it's legally unsound to claim liability rests anywhere other than with the customer.
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.
Also worth noting that if you brew coffee at the procedurally incorrect temperatures proposed by Liebeck's lawyer, the coffee will a) pose a bacteriological health hazard, and b) still cause 3rd degree burns with almost identical rapidity - source.
Did Liebeck's lawyer sue over the brewing temperature, or the serving temperature? Because there is a huge, huge difference.
I'm sure a lot of people just don't think it's worth responding when you reply to "the coffee was served at a reasonable and normal temperature" with a picture of iced coffee.
Certainly comes off more like smarmy straw man misdirection than anything legally relevant.
You made a factual statement that was wrong: "Properly brewed coffee gives 3rd degree burns in a few seconds if you spill it all over yourself."
What is the justification of the statement? There isn't one.
Can this statement be disproved? Very easily.
When you present an absolute statement and someone responds with a counter example, that isn't a strawman. That's an example of why your absolute statement is factually incorrect.
Basically, you're relying on a "no true cup of coffee" fallacy, and then whining "strawman" when someone points to cups of coffee that don't fit your assertion.
You said that coffee needs to be served at 185 degrees to be proper. This is untrue.
If coffee does not need to be served at 185 degrees to be proper, then why was McDonalds serving it at such a high temp? You can claim that other people serve it at that temperature, but that's an appeal to popularity. You need to provide an actual reason.
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.
Ok sure mcdermott, but if you serve coffee cold enough that it will not cause 3rd degree burns, that coffee is quite likely colder than what consumers expect and enjoy and can be reasonably expected to handle safely when they order "hot coffee".
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.
Again, even the 160 degree coffee suggested by Liebeck's lawyers is low enough that consumers generally dislike it and it is abnormal while still being hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if you pour it onto your genitals and sit in it for 90 seconds. Or even just a few seconds, for that matter.
Yeah, that sounds like a very realistic scenario on how a normal person would react in that situation.
How many seconds are required for that third degree burn, and does that take into account the massive cooling that occurs when the coffee is spilled and no longer being heated? And yes, it does matter. If you spill coffee and you're severely burned almost immediately, that coffee was too damn hot; if you have to let it sit there for a while, getting burned is your own fault.
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.
How many seconds are required for that third degree burn, and does that take into account the massive cooling that occurs when the coffee is spilled and no longer being heated? And yes, it does matter. If you spill coffee and you're severely burned almost immediately, that coffee was too damn hot; if you have to let it sit there for a while, getting burned is your own fault.
[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.
So how often do people specifically ask for 185 degree coffee?
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
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?
Coffee being hot enough to cause burns is an inevitable result of the way coffee is brewed and enjoyed
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.
Again, even the 160 degree coffee suggested by Liebeck's lawyers is low enough that consumers generally dislike it and it is abnormal while still being hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if you pour it onto your genitals and sit in it for 90 seconds. Or even just a few seconds, for that matter.
Yeah, that sounds like a very realistic scenario on how a normal person would react in that situation.
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.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
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?
You know, if I order a steak grilled over an open flame, I think I have a legitimate complaint if they give it to me and it's still actually on fire.
If you were an avid fajita eater and burned yourself by accidentally grabbing the cast iron pan I do not think you would have a legitimate case if it caused you third degree burns, when you only expected it to be hot enough to cause second. Either way you knew it was hot enough to cause serious injury, and it being hotter than you expected does not make it defective.
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.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Ok sure mcdermott, but if you serve coffee cold enough that it will not cause 3rd degree burns, that coffee is quite likely colder than what consumers expect and enjoy and can be reasonably expected to handle safely when they order "hot coffee".
Again, even the 160 degree coffee suggested by Liebeck's lawyers is low enough that consumers generally dislike it and it is abnormal while still being hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if you pour it onto your genitals and sit in it for 90 seconds. Or even just a few seconds, for that matter.
Mysteriously, when I was about eleven, and eating breakfast at a restaurant, someone knocked into the table, and dumped a freshly-poured cup of coffee onto my lap.
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.
Also keep in mind that when it comes to burning coffee, every second counts. If you have a few extra seconds to unstrap you belt or use a napkin or whatever, then that's good.
Firstly, this thread makes baby Newton cry. Seriously, I've seen better a understanding of science in a creationism debate.
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.
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.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Mysteriously, when I was about eleven, and eating breakfast at a restaurant, someone knocked into the table, and dumped a freshly-poured cup of coffee onto my lap.
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.
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.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Ok sure mcdermott, but if you serve coffee cold enough that it will not cause 3rd degree burns, that coffee is quite likely colder than what consumers expect and enjoy and can be reasonably expected to handle safely when they order "hot coffee".
Again, even the 160 degree coffee suggested by Liebeck's lawyers is low enough that consumers generally dislike it and it is abnormal while still being hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if you pour it onto your genitals and sit in it for 90 seconds. Or even just a few seconds, for that matter.
Mysteriously, when I was about eleven, and eating breakfast at a restaurant, someone knocked into the table, and dumped a freshly-poured cup of coffee onto my lap.
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.
Every cup of coffee need not be served at 180 degrees for tha to be a common and expected temperature to recieve coffee at.
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.
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.
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?
You know, if I order a steak grilled over an open flame, I think I have a legitimate complaint if they give it to me and it's still actually on fire.
If you were an avid fajita eater and burned yourself by accidentally grabbing the cast iron pan I do not think you would have a legitimate case if it caused you third degree burns, when you only expected it to be hot enough to cause second. Either way you knew it was hot enough to cause serious injury, and it being hotter than you expected does not make it defective.
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.)
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.
Because hot coffee is the expected state of coffee, not a defective state.
Coffee is still hot at 165 degrees. Giving third degree burns when spilled indicates that it is excessively hot. Burns, sure, but not burns that require surgery and hospital time.
Because hot coffee is the expected state of coffee, not a defective state.
Coffee is still hot at 165 degrees. Giving third degree burns when spilled indicates that it is excessively hot. Burns, sure, but not burns that require surgery and hospital time.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Let's say that someone makes the general rule, "Good salmon salmon should be pink, because that's a sign that it's getting a natural diet."
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 in this case pink=pink; McDonald's 185 degrees is no different from the 185 degrees somebody else's freshly brewed coffee is at. It's not any more "toxic."
Let's say that someone makes the general rule, "Good salmon salmon should be pink, because that's a sign that it's getting a natural diet."
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.
McDonald's isn't really concerned about making coffee properly. If they were, they wouldn't keep it in boilers and heat it to a constant 185. That's not how you make good coffee. It is, however, how you make lots of cheap coffee.
Let's say that someone makes the general rule, "Good salmon salmon should be pink, because that's a sign that it's getting a natural diet."
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.
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.
McDonald's isn't really concerned about making coffee properly. If they were, they wouldn't keep it in boilers and heat it to a constant 185. That's not how you make good coffee. It is, however, how you make lots of cheap coffee.
That's how Starbucks makes their coffee too, and it's generally ok.
McDonald's isn't really concerned about making coffee properly. If they were, they wouldn't keep it in boilers and heat it to a constant 185. That's not how you make good coffee. It is, however, how you make lots of cheap coffee.
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.
Is the coffee meant to be drunk right after it is served?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? 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.
Except that in this case pink=pink; McDonald's 185 degrees is no different from the 185 degrees somebody else's freshly brewed coffee is at.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Is dyed pink salmon is just as good as naturally pink salmon? Yes or no?
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.
And why are they illegal?
Answer: Because we conclude that selling things at a drive thru carries a higher risk.
McDonald's isn't really concerned about making coffee properly. If they were, they wouldn't keep it in boilers and heat it to a constant 185. That's not how you make good coffee. It is, however, how you make lots of cheap coffee.
That's how Starbucks makes their coffee too, and it's generally ok.
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.
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.
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?
Consumer Reporter: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you another one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, right, it's you know, it's glass, it's broken glass, you know? It sells very well, as a matter of fact, you know? It's just broken glass, you know?
Consumer Reporter: [ laughs ] I don't understand. I mean, children could seriously cut themselves on any one of these pieces!
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up, you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street, garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're just packaging what the kids want! I mean, it's a creative toy, you know? If you hold this up, you know, you see colors, every color of the rainbow! I mean, it teaches him about light refraction, you know? Prisms, and that stuff! You know what I mean?
Consumer Reporter: So, you don't feel that this product is dangerous?
Irwin Mainway: No! Look, we put a label on every bag that says, "Kid! Be careful - broken glass!" I mean, we sell a lot of products in the "Bag O'" line.. like Bag O' Glass, Bag O' Nails, Bag O' Bugs, Bag O' Vipers, Bag O' Sulfuric Acid. They're decent toys, you know what I mean?
Consumer Reporter: Well, I guess we could say that all of your toys are really unsafe and should rightfully be banned from the market. I guess I would just like to know what happened to the good ol' teddy bear.
Irwin Mainway: Hold on a minute, sister. I mean, we make a teddy bear. It's right here. [ picks up giant teddy bear ] It's got a nice little feature here, you see? I'll hold it up here. We call it a Teddy Chainsaw Bear. [ revs chainsaw in teddy bear's stomach ] I mean, a kid plays with saws, he can cut logs with it, you know what I mean.
Consumer Reporter: Well, this is certainly a very sad situation. One of the precious joys of Christmas warped by a ruthless profiteer like yourself.
Irwin Mainway: Well, that's just your opinion, you know what I mean?
Consumer Reporter: Well, I just don't understand why you can't make harmelss toys like these alphabet blocks. [ points to blocks ]
Irwin Mainway: C'mon, this is harmless? Alright, okay, you call this harmless? [ holds block in hand ] I mean.. [ plays with block and fakes injury ] Aagghh!! I got a splinter in here, look at that! This is wood! This is unsanded wood, it's rough!
Consumer Reporter: Alright, that's enough of this ridiculous display. [ holds toy phone ] Here is another creative toy, safe enough for a baby!
Irwin Mainway: [ grabs phone ] You say it's safe, I mean, look at this cord.. the kid is on the phone - "Hello? Hello?" - then.. [ twists cord around his neck, screams, and falls backward in chair ] You know what I mean? It's an example! You see my point, a dangerous toy like that?
Consumer Reporter: Well, let's try this one. What about this little foam play ball? I mean, even you, Mr. Mainway, can't find anything dangerous about this. Huh?
Irwin Mainway: [ takes ball, bounces it on table, then shoves it in his throat and feigns choking ]
Consumer Reporter: That's all the time we have for "Consumer Probe" this week.
I don't understand why it's debatable if it's irresponsible, given that this wasn't the first incident an Mcdonalds almost certainly calculated it'd be cheaper to maintain the status quo than take some safety measures.
Except that in this case pink=pink; McDonald's 185 degrees is no different from the 185 degrees somebody else's freshly brewed coffee is at.
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.
I was pointing out that your salmon analogy didn't work, because you specifically note that the pink on one salmon comes from toxic dye, while the other is natural.
Thus pink != pink.
But regardless of what it might mean to the quality of the coffee, 185 degree coffee is 185 degree coffee. They will cause the exact same injuries, because they are exactly the same physically. One is not more "toxic" than the other.
Yes, I know a bit about cooking. I realize the culinary difference. And if you haven't noticed, I have not generally been arguing with you. I was trying to help you, by pointing out the obvious flaw in your analogy.
2) Most starbucks do not have drive thrus.
Care to cite this? Because aside from stands that are located within other businesses (which obviously won't have drive-thrus), the bulk of standalone Starbucks locations I've seen in the last few years do. Both in smaller towns, suburban locations, and even a few urban locations. Outside of downtown urban cores (where even McDonald's will often not have drive-thru), drive-thru Starbucks seem to be the norm now. But I may well be wrong.
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.
I believe McDonald's does do this now, and this suit is probably the reason why. And this is my issue with McDonald's. The whole "other people serve at the same temperature" thing doesn't really hold a lot of weight with me, especially insofar as they tried to argue that it had fuckall to do with how coffee is supposed to be prepared (as you have argued, and as I have argued, McDonald's is more than willing to throw out the book on how to make quality coffee aside from "make sure it can burn off flesh").
The issue for me is that their entire method of serving coffee at a drive-thru was defective. It was a dangerous business practice, and they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that their service did not cause injury. And yes, the temperature of their product was a factor. If necessary, I'd argue that the entire idea of serving hot coffee through a drive-thru was defective. That it should not be allowed, and any business doing so was placing their customers in excessive danger that the customers probably don't fully understand; the normal response to a spilled coffee in a lap, which is what people think about when they gauge that danger, is to stand up...something you may not be able to do in a car. However I think measures can be taken to make it safer, such that this isn't necessary.
Basically, they decided to take a dangerous product (hot coffee) that had been served in one environment, and serve it in another environment that made the product more dangerous without taking some fairly easy steps to minimize that risk.
Reducing the temperature is one possible way to reduce that risk. It is hardly the only way. Or even a necessary way, if other measures are taken. I'm actually not sure I really buy all the arguments against McDonald's in this case (both made here, and in the actual suit), but their overall practice of how they served coffee at the time seems excessively dangerous to the point of negligence. Not necessarily defect.
I do know that if this is the best case you can come up with for frivolous litigation (it wasn't), or excessive awards (given McDonald's revenue, it wasn't), then our system works damn near flawlessly. /Doc
Care to cite this? Because aside from stands that are located within other businesses (which obviously won't have drive-thrus), the bulk of standalone Starbucks locations I've seen in the last few years do. Both in smaller towns, suburban locations, and even a few urban locations. Outside of downtown urban cores (where even McDonald's will often not have drive-thru), drive-thru Starbucks seem to be the norm now. But I may well be wrong.
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.
Care to cite this? Because aside from stands that are located within other businesses (which obviously won't have drive-thrus), the bulk of standalone Starbucks locations I've seen in the last few years do. Both in smaller towns, suburban locations, and even a few urban locations. Outside of downtown urban cores (where even McDonald's will often not have drive-thru), drive-thru Starbucks seem to be the norm now. But I may well be wrong.
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.
Probably largely a factor of age, yeah. It seems like a lot of the newer locations are being built with drive-thrus to catch that business. Every location I saw in Montana that wasn't inside another business (Barnes and Noble, Safeway, etc.) was built with a drive-thru. I think about half the standalone locations in Kitsap have drive-thrus (and a couple of the rest, like the Bremerton ferry terminal, are in areas where it wouldn't be feasible).
A little googling puts the number at about 40% having drive-thrus. I don't know if that's counting kiosks and other locations inside third-party businesses as "locations."
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.
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?
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?
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?
So wait, if a ton of companies do something a certain way, it is not irresponsible by definition?
Hmm.
Good to know.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
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?
So wait, if a ton of companies do something a certain way, it is not irresponsible by definition?
Hmm.
Good to know.
Nope. But I find it difficult to swallow that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior if it is done safelymillions of times a day. As hard to swallow as a sip of 185 degree coffee! Zingo!
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 in this case pink=pink; McDonald's 185 degrees is no different from the 185 degrees somebody else's freshly brewed coffee is at. It's not any more "toxic."
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 was pointing out that your salmon analogy didn't work, because you specifically note that the pink on one salmon comes from toxic dye, while the other is natural.
Thus pink != pink.
But regardless of what it might mean to the quality of the coffee, 185 degree coffee is 185 degree coffee. They will cause the exact same injuries, because they are exactly the same physically. One is not more "toxic" than the other.
Yes, I know a bit about cooking. I realize the culinary difference. And if you haven't noticed, I have not generally been arguing with you. I was trying to help you, by pointing out the obvious flaw in your analogy.
Care to cite this? Because aside from stands that are located within other businesses (which obviously won't have drive-thrus), the bulk of standalone Starbucks locations I've seen in the last few years do. Both in smaller towns, suburban locations, and even a few urban locations. Outside of downtown urban cores (where even McDonald's will often not have drive-thru), drive-thru Starbucks seem to be the norm now. But I may well be wrong.
I believe McDonald's does do this now, and this suit is probably the reason why. And this is my issue with McDonald's. The whole "other people serve at the same temperature" thing doesn't really hold a lot of weight with me, especially insofar as they tried to argue that it had fuckall to do with how coffee is supposed to be prepared (as you have argued, and as I have argued, McDonald's is more than willing to throw out the book on how to make quality coffee aside from "make sure it can burn off flesh").
The issue for me is that their entire method of serving coffee at a drive-thru was defective. It was a dangerous business practice, and they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that their service did not cause injury. And yes, the temperature of their product was a factor. If necessary, I'd argue that the entire idea of serving hot coffee through a drive-thru was defective. That it should not be allowed, and any business doing so was placing their customers in excessive danger that the customers probably don't fully understand; the normal response to a spilled coffee in a lap, which is what people think about when they gauge that danger, is to stand up...something you may not be able to do in a car. However I think measures can be taken to make it safer, such that this isn't necessary.
Basically, they decided to take a dangerous product (hot coffee) that had been served in one environment, and serve it in another environment that made the product more dangerous without taking some fairly easy steps to minimize that risk.
Reducing the temperature is one possible way to reduce that risk. It is hardly the only way. Or even a necessary way, if other measures are taken. I'm actually not sure I really buy all the arguments against McDonald's in this case (both made here, and in the actual suit), but their overall practice of how they served coffee at the time seems excessively dangerous to the point of negligence. Not necessarily defect.
I do know that if this is the best case you can come up with for frivolous litigation (it wasn't), or excessive awards (given McDonald's revenue, it wasn't), then our system works damn near flawlessly. /Doc
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.
Probably largely a factor of age, yeah. It seems like a lot of the newer locations are being built with drive-thrus to catch that business. Every location I saw in Montana that wasn't inside another business (Barnes and Noble, Safeway, etc.) was built with a drive-thru. I think about half the standalone locations in Kitsap have drive-thrus (and a couple of the rest, like the Bremerton ferry terminal, are in areas where it wouldn't be feasible).
A little googling puts the number at about 40% having drive-thrus. I don't know if that's counting kiosks and other locations inside third-party businesses as "locations."
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