I have spilled hot coffee on myself before in the car. It hurt a little, but left no lasting burns. I have no idea how hot it was, on account of not carrying a thermometer around with me, so this is useless even as an anecdote, but I can't imagine the number of skin grafts per day are a significant number.
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.
You're reaching too wide with this bullshit knife analogy. No one buys a knife to consume. They buy it to cut through something. If you cut yourself with a knife, it did its' job perfectly, just not on the right material.
You don't brew coffee to HURT people. The argument is moot. Stop fucking making it.
You aren't making any sense. Steak knives aren't generally made to hurt people, either. Sharp things cut, and hot things burn. Coffee and steak knives aren't supposed to hurt you, but drop a perfectly good one on yourself, and it might. The analogy is actually in documented court decisions, because it is spot on. The fact that one is "bought to consume" doesn't seem to have much to do with anything. Cayenne pepper is made to consume... and a mom killed her kid one time with it. This is all stupid waste of time though. It's always been the same. Unless you can show how there was something wrong with the coffee, the fact that it burned someone doesn't mean anything.
The best coffee in the world doesn't cause third degree burns. Once again, false equivalency (I believe that's the fallacy, insisting two things are equal when they are not).
But you are completely wrong, and every bit of evidence ever shown in court, or in this thread, shows that you are completely wrong. Seriously, you need to do a little more prep work before you post. The temperature of fresh coffee can cause third degree burns, period.
What, you mean like serving it far hotter than it needs to be?
Neither you nor anyone else has ever backed this up, whereas ample evidence exists to the contrary. You have no basis to claim that it is far hotter that it needs to be. When addressed directly in other cases, it was actually judged to be slightly cooler than it needs to be.
Schrodinger seems more concerned that "because it's legal you can't complain it's irresponsible" seems to be your stance.
Except, I've never given any indication whatsoever that this is my stance. In case you missed it, it's "because the coffee was exactly what it is supposed to be, you can't say it's defective."
I have spilled hot coffee on myself before in the car. It hurt a little, but left no lasting burns. I have no idea how hot it was, on account of not carrying a thermometer around with me, so this is useless even as an anecdote, but I can't imagine the number of skin grafts per day are a significant number.
Well, I had my coffee shop throw a thermometer in mine, and it was hotter than any temperature McD's was accused of. Yea for anecdote.
And now I can't help but wonder just how many people get burned by their drive-thru coffee each day.
Me too, because part of that idea is both that it is done millions of times a day safely, and that accidents happen only a fraction of a percent of the time. If there were five million safe drive thru coffee sales a day, and three million unsafe ones, that would obviously be ridiculous, and evidence to support that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior.
And now I can't help but wonder just how many people get burned by their drive-thru coffee each day.
Me too, because part of that idea is both that it is done millions of times a day safely, and that accidents happen only a fraction of a percent of the time. If there were five million safe drive thru coffee sales a day, and three million unsafe ones, that would obviously be ridiculous, and evidence to support that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior.
How many people is it necessary to actually be harmed by needlessly reckless behavior for it to matter?
And now I can't help but wonder just how many people get burned by their drive-thru coffee each day.
Me too, because part of that idea is both that it is done millions of times a day safely, and that accidents happen only a fraction of a percent of the time. If there were five million safe drive thru coffee sales a day, and three million unsafe ones, that would obviously be ridiculous, and evidence to support that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior.
How many people is it necessary to actually be harmed by needlessly reckless behavior for it to matter?
Which is why I brought up the Pinto earlier in the thread.
And now I can't help but wonder just how many people get burned by their drive-thru coffee each day.
Me too, because part of that idea is both that it is done millions of times a day safely, and that accidents happen only a fraction of a percent of the time. If there were five million safe drive thru coffee sales a day, and three million unsafe ones, that would obviously be ridiculous, and evidence to support that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior.
How many people is it necessary to actually be harmed by needlessly reckless behavior for it to matter?
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
edit: I realize the earlier post makes it seem like I am saying that if more people were injured by the coffee the Liebeck case would have more merit, but that was not my intent. It would have no bearing on the Liebeck case specifically.
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
Considering it's undrinkable at that temperature, why would you ever serve it at that temperature?
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
Considering it's undrinkable at that temperature, why would you ever serve it at that temperature?
Because that was the temperature it was just brewed at, or because that's the temperature it's held at. For the latter, the reason is so that it'll still be "hot" to some degree or another when you go to drink it, which is probably not right away.
On this, McDonald's was not wrong. If it's most palatable at X temperature, but isn't consumed for Y minutes, you need to serve it at Z temperature, where Z>X. How much greater will be influenced by many factors.
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
Unless you mean to say that I could buy coffee, pour the whole cup into my lap, sit, and assume I would not be burned seriously. Which is what happened to Mrs. Leibeck, although obviously in the most accidental and tragic of ways.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
Should they?
Why should they?
Because if consumers did not take the known risks of a dangerous product upon themselves, we would not be able to sell anything capable of causing injury without making ourselves vulnerable to absurd financial liability. If Global was liable for the cost of every accident involving their knives regardless of whether the knife itself was defective they would quickly go bankrupt, to say nothing of the makers of stoves!
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
Actually, coffee is best brewed at 195-205 degrees.
So 185 seems too cold for brewing, and too hot for serving.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
Should they?
Why should they?
Because if consumers did not take the known risks of a dangerous product upon themselves, we would not be able to sell anything capable of causing injury without making ourselves vulnerable to absurd financial liability. If Global was liable for the cost of every accident involving their knives regardless of whether the knife itself was defective they would quickly go bankrupt, to say nothing of the makers of stoves!
I agree some times products carry unnecessary risks. What part of this risk is necessary?
Also, the selling point of knives is their ability to cut. I do not believe a selling point of coffee is its inability to be drunk.
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
We could have the employees keep possession of coffee until such a time as it was safe to consume, but being as most consumers are neither disabled nor retarded (and I mean this literally), the assumption is it is safe to serve adults hot beverages. Coffee does not need to be pre-cooled to the point where it can no longer cause injury before being served to adults.
Anyone who isn't constantly cringing in fear at minor risks is eventually going to get injured. It happens. People cut themselves with knives, burn themselves with drinks, fall out of trees, and that is part of life. People, even children, boil water all the time. Hot liquids are dangerous in that they are capable of injury, but they do not represent some unusual or terrible threat that must be stamped out.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
Should they?
Why should they?
Because if consumers did not take the known risks of a dangerous product upon themselves, we would not be able to sell anything capable of causing injury without making ourselves vulnerable to absurd financial liability. If Global was liable for the cost of every accident involving their knives regardless of whether the knife itself was defective they would quickly go bankrupt, to say nothing of the makers of stoves!
I agree some times products carry unnecessary risks. What part of this risk is necessary?
Also, the selling point of knives is their ability to cut. I do not believe a selling point of coffee is its inability to be drunk.
In the case of a high quality coffee house it is that the customer need not wait around at the counter, staring longinly across the counter at their freshly brewed coffee which they cannot touch, while the coffee cools.
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Either is a perfectly acceptable reason to serve hot coffee, and more importantly even if the seller has no reason whatsoever, they can still serve 185 degree coffee. Because if Starbucks' 185 degree coffee is not defective, neither is McDonalds', and neither is Greasy McSpoons which is hot for no good reason at all. Two products identical in their danger, are either both defective or neither.
Can somebody change the thread title from "Tort Reform" to "Brewing and Storage Temperatures of Caffeinated Beverages"? How about some law discussion?
You want to reform tort law? Easy:
1. Make punitive damages payable to the state rather than the plaintiff.
2. There is no step 2.
Discuss.
Now that you mention it, I have actually wondered on several occasion why punitive damages are not payable to the state rather than the plaintiff. My only complaint off the top of my head with it would be that since I do not think our tort system is broken there is no need to waste time fighting for such a change, and then deal with all the inherent chaos in enacting it.
Also, can anyone tell me why we have a system that can award punitive damages above and beyond whatever hurt was caused, yet every class action lawsuit I have ever qualified for would return to me only pennies on the dollar? I mean even if you consider lawyers' fees, we the plaintiffs should get back something like two thirds, should we not? It seems absurd to me that some corporation can commit large volume small scale fraud, make a great profit from it, and when caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar, only be required to return half the cookies!!
Can somebody change the thread title from "Tort Reform" to "Brewing and Storage Temperatures of Caffeinated Beverages"? How about some law discussion?
You want to reform tort law? Easy:
1. Make punitive damages payable to the state rather than the plaintiff.
2. There is no step 2.
Discuss.
As long as all funds obtained this way are spent on regulations to prevent the harm in the first place, I'm game
My problem with that would be that punitive damages are a lesser penalty than regulation. If we were to tie the two together we would be left with the choice of no punishment, or severe punishment, but without a step between.
And now that I think about it, it is up to the judicial system to assign punitive damages, but up to the legislature to regulate. It seems this would quite complicate things, as the judge assigning punitive damages would be behavin quasi-legislatively, in creating a fund for regulation.
1. Make punitive damages payable to the state rather than the plaintiff.
2. There is no step 2.
Discuss.
As long as all funds obtained this way are spent on regulations to prevent the harm in the first place, I'm game
That seems pretty silly. The reason to fine companies is to make it so that it makes more economic sense for them to change their practices than continue causing harm. If they're getting fined and paying out lawsuits, there shouldn't need to be regulations - you've already been regulated by the judiciary.
Regulations don't cost the government money, they cost the corporations money - fining McDonalds $10 for hot coffee and then implementing some sort of regulated body to help them produce better coffee cups doesn't seem like a good use of government time. The $10 million is to encourage mcdonalds to sort themselves out.
Allowing the body that dictates and doles out the punishment to have control over the spending creates bad feedback loops. It should just go into the state/national coffers and be another source of spending. If introducing a regulatory body is what's needed, the government can do that, but I'm guessing in most cases there will be better uses of the money.
This is now the McDonalds hot coffee thread. There is a new thread for discussing tort reform. If you talk about McDonalds and their crappy nuclear temperature bean-swill in the new thread, I will cut you with a hypothetical knife that can slice through anything. Coffee talk goes here.
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.
This is a silly comparison. An open bar gets people inebriated. Last I checked driving doesn't. We have every reason to expect a consumer to be as capably intelligent while behind the wheel as any other time.
Additionally your objection that people do not drink their drive thru coffee at work seems silly, as that is the reason McDonalds had internally, and presented in court, to hold their coffee at that temperature. No one has ever challenged this.
Can somebody change the thread title from "Tort Reform" to "Brewing and Storage Temperatures of Caffeinated Beverages"? How about some law discussion?
You want to reform tort law? Easy:
1. Make punitive damages payable to the state rather than the plaintiff.
2. There is no step 2.
Discuss.
I just got done reading this thread, and definitely agree with the post name change, since there really isn't anyone here who is so ludicrous as to claim how binding arbitration and many other aspects that were brought up in the Doc are sustainable or proper..
To your proposed reform, you're clearly a pinko, and unfamiliar with capitalists ideals.. But whenever people start talking about specifics, there altruistic "fix" for our broken court systems really do become arbitrary and very clearly biased (even if the issuers of said "fix" aren't aware of said bias).. Tort reform is very similar to intellectual property laws in that respect. Until globalization fully takes effect, I don't see how any meaningful intrinsinic change could occur due to the political climate currently.
This is a silly comparison. An open bar gets people inebriated. Last I checked driving doesn't. We have every reason to expect a consumer to be as capably intelligent while behind the wheel as any other time.
So should alcohol be outlawed in all cases, including bars, or should it never be outlawed ever, as in drive thrus?
You are relying on a unproven generalizations, "If something is okay to sell in one context, then it's okay to sell in all other context."
If this statement is true, then it should also apply to alcohol. If the statement is not true, then you need to find a different argument. Your ability to come up with reasons why alcohol should be legal in bars but not at the drive thru demonstrates special pleading.
Additionally your objection that people do not drink their drive thru coffee at work seems silly, as that is the reason McDonalds had internally, and presented in court, to hold their coffee at that temperature. No one has ever challenged this.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
This is a silly comparison. An open bar gets people inebriated. Last I checked driving doesn't. We have every reason to expect a consumer to be as capably intelligent while behind the wheel as any other time.
So should alcohol be outlawed in all cases, including bars, or should it never be outlawed ever, as in drive thrus?
You are relying on a unproven generalizations, "If something is okay to sell in one context, then it's okay to sell in all other context."
If this statement is true, then it should also apply to alcohol. If the statement is not true, then you need to find a different argument. Your ability to come up with reasons why alcohol should be legal in bars but not at the drive thru demonstrates special pleading.
Additionally your objection that people do not drink their drive thru coffee at work seems silly, as that is the reason McDonalds had internally, and presented in court, to hold their coffee at that temperature. No one has ever challenged this.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
That... isn't what special pleading is.
First of all, we get to make most things we feel like illegal, such as selling drive thru liquor. That still has no application to tort law. My city made air powered guns illegal. But if they hadn't, selling air powered guns to adults would not suddenly be negligent behavior. Even at a drive-thru, although I can't see the demand for that making a business viable.
Second, it would be negligent behavior to sell dangerous objects to people consuming alcohol, as alcohol inebriates affecting decision making. However it is not negligent to sell dangerous objects to motorists, as driving does not inebriate.
And third, whether people choose to drink their coffee in the car or not, McDonalds still chose to sell their coffee hot so customers could drink it at their preferred temperature after they arrive at work. That criteria need not apply to all of their customers for it to be a perfectly legitimate decision.
Just as I make my own thousand island dressing in my restaurant, but most customers couldn't care less. It gives me the advantage of pleasing both the customers that do care, and the ones that do not. Even if it didn't, and I only wanted to cater to the fraction of people that do care, it would be a legitimate decision.
The problem with attempting to make it foolproof, is that no matter what we do a sufficiently talented fool will come along. If we to attempt to serve coffee at a non-dangerous temperature it would impact the taste and people would go elsewhere. If we create better containers to safely contain the coffee as long as there is some way for a human being to drink the coffee they will find some way to spill it upon themselves.
The only solution I see before us is, as a nation, to begin training people to properly handle hot coffee. We shall offer a week long course to the nation that will be free for everyone wishing to attend. At the end of said course you will be issued a card proving you have been trained to handle dangerous coffee, as well as indicating you accept sole responsibility for any and all coffee related mishaps you may be involved with. Henceforth only those with the card will be able to purchase premade coffee, or utilize office coffee machines. Any and all possession of coffee outside the home without you card will result in legal consequences.
I know this sounds harsh but it appears the only way forward to protect the people from the dangers of hot delicious coffee.
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Why not just provide better insulated cups rather than risk the safety of customers?
The accident in the Liebeck case was not caused by a failure of the container.
You missed the point of his question. If drinkable temperature is so critical, why not serve it at a lower, but safer temperature, and provide better insulated cups so that it maintains that temperature until they're ready to drink?
Hint:
It'll hurt McDonald's bottom line, and protecting that it more important than all the skin on all the customers in the world.
First of all, we get to make most things we feel like illegal, such as selling drive thru liquor. That still has no application to tort law.
Yes, but it does have application in refuting your general assertion that if a product is okay to sell in one context (i.e., in a bar), then it is okay to sell in all contexts (i.e., at a drive thru).
Come to think of it, why is DUI illegal at all? After all, even a blood alcohol level of zero won't prevent you from getting in a car accident. Why is it legal for a person in a bar to have a blood alcohol level above .08, but illegal for a person in a driver seat to have the same level?
And third, whether people choose to drink their coffee in the car or not, McDonalds still chose to sell their coffee hot so customers could drink it at their preferred temperature after they arrive at work.
You realize that if the distance from McDonalds is enough so that the coffee gets cold, that would imply that the distance is also enough for the food to get cold, right?
People won't tolerate cold coffee, but they'll tolerate cold food?
The problem with attempting to make it foolproof, is that no matter what we do a sufficiently talented fool will come along. If we to attempt to serve coffee at a non-dangerous temperature it would impact the taste and people would go elsewhere.
McDonalds is already destroying the flavor by maintaining high temperatures for long periods of time. Coffee is made up of hundreds of different flavor compounds. Those compounds break down or evaporate at high temperatures.
The only explanation I found on why coffee should be served at high temperatures is because there are flavor compounds that vaporize and enhance the aroma at around 160, which is the temperature that 185 coffee will reach by the time you add cream and it cools down. However, if you continue heating the coffee at 185 for long periods of time, then those same flavor compounds get absolutely destroyed, which defeats the entire purpose.
The problem with attempting to make it foolproof, is that no matter what we do a sufficiently talented fool will come along. If we to attempt to serve coffee at a non-dangerous temperature it would impact the taste and people would go elsewhere.
McDonalds is already destroying the flavor by maintaining high temperatures for long periods of time. Coffee is made up of hundreds of different flavor compounds. Those compounds break down or evaporate at high temperatures.
The only explanation I found on why coffee should be served at high temperatures is because there are flavor compounds that vaporize and enhance the aroma at around 160, which is the temperature that 185 coffee will reach by the time you add cream and it cools down. However, if you continue heating the coffee at 185 for long periods of time, then those same flavor compounds get absolutely destroyed, which defeats the entire purpose.
"There will always be fools so let's not bother" is a red herring anyway.
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Why not just provide better insulated cups rather than risk the safety of customers?
The accident in the Liebeck case was not caused by a failure of the container.
What Bionic said. If it's the goal to ensure the coffee is still hot when it gets to the customer's destination, why not just provide better insulation rather than providing dangerous coffee?
"There will always be fools so let's not bother" is a red herring anyway.
Dear sir, I do not suggest we cease bother with this hot coffee action item. Obviously if people are being burned then something must be done, and I believe that my license and training solution is the best we can hope for. Only an unfeeling monster would not see the danger these fiery beverages could bring to society at large. While true that hot coffee serves only to burn people and through that hot burning, along with its dangerous cocktail of chemicals, awaken that miraculous spirit of ingenuity that lies within us all. It remains a dangerous everyday necessity. Attempting to ban coffee would surely bring about the end times.
Before us lie the facts that people prefer their coffee hot, that only the truly mad desire cold coffee, and that served at optimum temperature coffee is far to hot to ingest except by only the most highly trained masters of the coffee arts. We are presented with the problem that coffee cannot be allowed to cool inside the establishment as it would be rendered nigh undrinkable, which as we know would lead to anarchy. Thus coffee must be contained in such a way as to be safely transported from the barista's own hands to the place where you wish to enjoy your coffee experience. This variable is a complex one, for we know that when you accept the coffee it is at a highly dangerous temperature, if your coffee nirvana is to far when you arrive your coffee will be cold, and if it is to close you could potentially injure yourself as the coffee has yet to reach the perfect temperature.
So we must either look to the man, or the container. Now looking at the container we are left with one problem from which all other problems arise. How the F do we get the coffee out? If it is to hard to remove the coffee people will not like the container and seek easier containers. If the container is to easy to remove the coffee then we risk the lives both of the imbiber, as well as those around them. While an insulted sippy cup may prove the best option, nobody is willing to drink coffee from an insulted sippy cup.
Hence we must look to changing the people themselves. I feel that we can teach people to be responsible with coffee, and that said training could be done within one weeks time. It is the future ladies and gentlemen, and only you can decide to make it a safer place through mandatory coffee safety training for users. I call the program McSTFU. Who's with me?
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Why not just provide better insulated cups rather than risk the safety of customers?
The accident in the Liebeck case was not caused by a failure of the container.
You missed the point of his question. If drinkable temperature is so critical, why not serve it at a lower, but safer temperature, and provide better insulated cups so that it maintains that temperature until they're ready to drink?
Hint:
It'll hurt McDonald's bottom line, and protecting that it more important than all the skin on all the customers in the world.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
Posts
But you are completely wrong, and every bit of evidence ever shown in court, or in this thread, shows that you are completely wrong. Seriously, you need to do a little more prep work before you post. The temperature of fresh coffee can cause third degree burns, period.
Neither you nor anyone else has ever backed this up, whereas ample evidence exists to the contrary. You have no basis to claim that it is far hotter that it needs to be. When addressed directly in other cases, it was actually judged to be slightly cooler than it needs to be.
Except, I've never given any indication whatsoever that this is my stance. In case you missed it, it's "because the coffee was exactly what it is supposed to be, you can't say it's defective."
Well, I had my coffee shop throw a thermometer in mine, and it was hotter than any temperature McD's was accused of. Yea for anecdote.
It's extremely rare, at McD's temperatures, and hotter.
Me too, because part of that idea is both that it is done millions of times a day safely, and that accidents happen only a fraction of a percent of the time. If there were five million safe drive thru coffee sales a day, and three million unsafe ones, that would obviously be ridiculous, and evidence to support that selling coffee at a drive thru is negligent behavior.
--LeVar Burton
How many people is it necessary to actually be harmed by needlessly reckless behavior for it to matter?
Which is why I brought up the Pinto earlier in the thread.
Yeah, you don't seem to be tracking on the facts of the case very well. Selling a product which is inherently dangerous does not make you reckless if that product does indeed hurt someone. Which is why we manage to sell coffee, knives, ladders, and nail guns on a daily basis.
I am completely unfamiliar with the Ford Pinto example, but I assume it was shown to be defective and dangerous. That however would have been that it was more dangerous than other automobiles, not that it was equally so. The McDonalds coffee has repeatedly been shown to be no more dangerous than other coffee.
edit: I realize the earlier post makes it seem like I am saying that if more people were injured by the coffee the Liebeck case would have more merit, but that was not my intent. It would have no bearing on the Liebeck case specifically.
--LeVar Burton
I don't believe this to be so.
People have demonstrated that coffee is best brewed at 185 degrees.
No one has demonstrated that's the standard for serving it.
Considering it's undrinkable at that temperature, why would you ever serve it at that temperature?
Because that was the temperature it was just brewed at, or because that's the temperature it's held at. For the latter, the reason is so that it'll still be "hot" to some degree or another when you go to drink it, which is probably not right away.
On this, McDonald's was not wrong. If it's most palatable at X temperature, but isn't consumed for Y minutes, you need to serve it at Z temperature, where Z>X. How much greater will be influenced by many factors.
It need not be the standard, only common enough that the customer does not have a reasonable expectation that spilling hot coffee in one's lap would not cause serious burns. Coffee is certainly served hot enough to do that almost always, and as hot as 180 degrees frequently. Therefore the coffee consumer must assume it is dangerous, and assume the risk of handling it accordingly.
Unless you mean to say that I could buy coffee, pour the whole cup into my lap, sit, and assume I would not be burned seriously. Which is what happened to Mrs. Leibeck, although obviously in the most accidental and tragic of ways.
--LeVar Burton
Should they?
Why should they?
Because if consumers did not take the known risks of a dangerous product upon themselves, we would not be able to sell anything capable of causing injury without making ourselves vulnerable to absurd financial liability. If Global was liable for the cost of every accident involving their knives regardless of whether the knife itself was defective they would quickly go bankrupt, to say nothing of the makers of stoves!
--LeVar Burton
Actually, coffee is best brewed at 195-205 degrees.
So 185 seems too cold for brewing, and too hot for serving.
I agree some times products carry unnecessary risks. What part of this risk is necessary?
Also, the selling point of knives is their ability to cut. I do not believe a selling point of coffee is its inability to be drunk.
Maybe some people really like the taste of burnt coffee?
We could have the employees keep possession of coffee until such a time as it was safe to consume, but being as most consumers are neither disabled nor retarded (and I mean this literally), the assumption is it is safe to serve adults hot beverages. Coffee does not need to be pre-cooled to the point where it can no longer cause injury before being served to adults.
Anyone who isn't constantly cringing in fear at minor risks is eventually going to get injured. It happens. People cut themselves with knives, burn themselves with drinks, fall out of trees, and that is part of life. People, even children, boil water all the time. Hot liquids are dangerous in that they are capable of injury, but they do not represent some unusual or terrible threat that must be stamped out.
Why are we accepting that coffee is supposed to be undrinkable as its design?
You want to reform tort law? Easy:
1. Make punitive damages payable to the state rather than the plaintiff.
2. There is no step 2.
Discuss.
Play with me on Steam
In the case of a high quality coffee house it is that the customer need not wait around at the counter, staring longinly across the counter at their freshly brewed coffee which they cannot touch, while the coffee cools.
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Either is a perfectly acceptable reason to serve hot coffee, and more importantly even if the seller has no reason whatsoever, they can still serve 185 degree coffee. Because if Starbucks' 185 degree coffee is not defective, neither is McDonalds', and neither is Greasy McSpoons which is hot for no good reason at all. Two products identical in their danger, are either both defective or neither.
Now that you mention it, I have actually wondered on several occasion why punitive damages are not payable to the state rather than the plaintiff. My only complaint off the top of my head with it would be that since I do not think our tort system is broken there is no need to waste time fighting for such a change, and then deal with all the inherent chaos in enacting it.
Also, can anyone tell me why we have a system that can award punitive damages above and beyond whatever hurt was caused, yet every class action lawsuit I have ever qualified for would return to me only pennies on the dollar? I mean even if you consider lawyers' fees, we the plaintiffs should get back something like two thirds, should we not? It seems absurd to me that some corporation can commit large volume small scale fraud, make a great profit from it, and when caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar, only be required to return half the cookies!!
--LeVar Burton
As long as all funds obtained this way are spent on regulations to prevent the harm in the first place, I'm game
My problem with that would be that punitive damages are a lesser penalty than regulation. If we were to tie the two together we would be left with the choice of no punishment, or severe punishment, but without a step between.
And now that I think about it, it is up to the judicial system to assign punitive damages, but up to the legislature to regulate. It seems this would quite complicate things, as the judge assigning punitive damages would be behavin quasi-legislatively, in creating a fund for regulation.
--LeVar Burton
That seems pretty silly. The reason to fine companies is to make it so that it makes more economic sense for them to change their practices than continue causing harm. If they're getting fined and paying out lawsuits, there shouldn't need to be regulations - you've already been regulated by the judiciary.
Regulations don't cost the government money, they cost the corporations money - fining McDonalds $10 for hot coffee and then implementing some sort of regulated body to help them produce better coffee cups doesn't seem like a good use of government time. The $10 million is to encourage mcdonalds to sort themselves out.
Allowing the body that dictates and doles out the punishment to have control over the spending creates bad feedback loops. It should just go into the state/national coffers and be another source of spending. If introducing a regulatory body is what's needed, the government can do that, but I'm guessing in most cases there will be better uses of the money.
Play with me on Steam
Don't most offices already have coffee machines? People buy coffee at McDonalds so they can drink it in the car.
If selling weapons at a ninja shop isn't defective, then neither is selling weapons at an open bar.
Because context is always completely meaningless!
So tell me, you already acknowledged that drive thru open liquor is illegal, even though open liquor at bars is not.
Does that mean that liquor should be illegal in bars, just like it is for drive thrus?
Or does that mean that liquor should be legal in drive thrus, just like it's legal at bars?
Additionally your objection that people do not drink their drive thru coffee at work seems silly, as that is the reason McDonalds had internally, and presented in court, to hold their coffee at that temperature. No one has ever challenged this.
--LeVar Burton
I just got done reading this thread, and definitely agree with the post name change, since there really isn't anyone here who is so ludicrous as to claim how binding arbitration and many other aspects that were brought up in the Doc are sustainable or proper..
To your proposed reform, you're clearly a pinko, and unfamiliar with capitalists ideals.. But whenever people start talking about specifics, there altruistic "fix" for our broken court systems really do become arbitrary and very clearly biased (even if the issuers of said "fix" aren't aware of said bias).. Tort reform is very similar to intellectual property laws in that respect. Until globalization fully takes effect, I don't see how any meaningful intrinsinic change could occur due to the political climate currently.
So should alcohol be outlawed in all cases, including bars, or should it never be outlawed ever, as in drive thrus?
You are relying on a unproven generalizations, "If something is okay to sell in one context, then it's okay to sell in all other context."
If this statement is true, then it should also apply to alcohol. If the statement is not true, then you need to find a different argument. Your ability to come up with reasons why alcohol should be legal in bars but not at the drive thru demonstrates special pleading.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
That... isn't what special pleading is.
First of all, we get to make most things we feel like illegal, such as selling drive thru liquor. That still has no application to tort law. My city made air powered guns illegal. But if they hadn't, selling air powered guns to adults would not suddenly be negligent behavior. Even at a drive-thru, although I can't see the demand for that making a business viable.
Second, it would be negligent behavior to sell dangerous objects to people consuming alcohol, as alcohol inebriates affecting decision making. However it is not negligent to sell dangerous objects to motorists, as driving does not inebriate.
And third, whether people choose to drink their coffee in the car or not, McDonalds still chose to sell their coffee hot so customers could drink it at their preferred temperature after they arrive at work. That criteria need not apply to all of their customers for it to be a perfectly legitimate decision.
Just as I make my own thousand island dressing in my restaurant, but most customers couldn't care less. It gives me the advantage of pleasing both the customers that do care, and the ones that do not. Even if it didn't, and I only wanted to cater to the fraction of people that do care, it would be a legitimate decision.
--LeVar Burton
Why not just provide better insulated cups rather than risk the safety of customers?
The only solution I see before us is, as a nation, to begin training people to properly handle hot coffee. We shall offer a week long course to the nation that will be free for everyone wishing to attend. At the end of said course you will be issued a card proving you have been trained to handle dangerous coffee, as well as indicating you accept sole responsibility for any and all coffee related mishaps you may be involved with. Henceforth only those with the card will be able to purchase premade coffee, or utilize office coffee machines. Any and all possession of coffee outside the home without you card will result in legal consequences.
I know this sounds harsh but it appears the only way forward to protect the people from the dangers of hot delicious coffee.
The accident in the Liebeck case was not caused by a failure of the container.
--LeVar Burton
You missed the point of his question. If drinkable temperature is so critical, why not serve it at a lower, but safer temperature, and provide better insulated cups so that it maintains that temperature until they're ready to drink?
Hint:
Yes, but it does have application in refuting your general assertion that if a product is okay to sell in one context (i.e., in a bar), then it is okay to sell in all contexts (i.e., at a drive thru).
Come to think of it, why is DUI illegal at all? After all, even a blood alcohol level of zero won't prevent you from getting in a car accident. Why is it legal for a person in a bar to have a blood alcohol level above .08, but illegal for a person in a driver seat to have the same level?
You realize that if the distance from McDonalds is enough so that the coffee gets cold, that would imply that the distance is also enough for the food to get cold, right?
People won't tolerate cold coffee, but they'll tolerate cold food?
McDonalds is already destroying the flavor by maintaining high temperatures for long periods of time. Coffee is made up of hundreds of different flavor compounds. Those compounds break down or evaporate at high temperatures.
The only explanation I found on why coffee should be served at high temperatures is because there are flavor compounds that vaporize and enhance the aroma at around 160, which is the temperature that 185 coffee will reach by the time you add cream and it cools down. However, if you continue heating the coffee at 185 for long periods of time, then those same flavor compounds get absolutely destroyed, which defeats the entire purpose.
"There will always be fools so let's not bother" is a red herring anyway.
Why so negative? On a scale of 1-10 i give it a resounded OCH MI TONG OH DAR GWAD MY TONG!!
What Bionic said. If it's the goal to ensure the coffee is still hot when it gets to the customer's destination, why not just provide better insulation rather than providing dangerous coffee?
Dear sir, I do not suggest we cease bother with this hot coffee action item. Obviously if people are being burned then something must be done, and I believe that my license and training solution is the best we can hope for. Only an unfeeling monster would not see the danger these fiery beverages could bring to society at large. While true that hot coffee serves only to burn people and through that hot burning, along with its dangerous cocktail of chemicals, awaken that miraculous spirit of ingenuity that lies within us all. It remains a dangerous everyday necessity. Attempting to ban coffee would surely bring about the end times.
Before us lie the facts that people prefer their coffee hot, that only the truly mad desire cold coffee, and that served at optimum temperature coffee is far to hot to ingest except by only the most highly trained masters of the coffee arts. We are presented with the problem that coffee cannot be allowed to cool inside the establishment as it would be rendered nigh undrinkable, which as we know would lead to anarchy. Thus coffee must be contained in such a way as to be safely transported from the barista's own hands to the place where you wish to enjoy your coffee experience. This variable is a complex one, for we know that when you accept the coffee it is at a highly dangerous temperature, if your coffee nirvana is to far when you arrive your coffee will be cold, and if it is to close you could potentially injure yourself as the coffee has yet to reach the perfect temperature.
So we must either look to the man, or the container. Now looking at the container we are left with one problem from which all other problems arise. How the F do we get the coffee out? If it is to hard to remove the coffee people will not like the container and seek easier containers. If the container is to easy to remove the coffee then we risk the lives both of the imbiber, as well as those around them. While an insulted sippy cup may prove the best option, nobody is willing to drink coffee from an insulted sippy cup.
Hence we must look to changing the people themselves. I feel that we can teach people to be responsible with coffee, and that said training could be done within one weeks time. It is the future ladies and gentlemen, and only you can decide to make it a safer place through mandatory coffee safety training for users. I call the program McSTFU. Who's with me?
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
--LeVar Burton