And Yar, statistical considerations are almost never relevant when considering issues of law. In fact, I could name a couple of cases of the top of my head that directly say that probabilities should never be assessed statistically.
Well, he's using the phrase "statistically significant" as a rhetorical device. That phrase means "not due to chance" when comparing two experimental groups or comparing a sample to a population. Since we're not doing anything of the sort, he must just mean the common definition of "significant," as in "Perhaps if the number of accidents is reduced below any significant number?" But, gee, when you put it like that it makes it sound like the cutoff for a "significant number" is less scientific and more arbitrary.
Edit: In fact, maybe we could give it a name. Alpha is the cutoff for statistical significance, so we could call the cutoff for Yar significance Yarpha. Where X is equal to the number of accidents, and Y is equal to the number of units sold, if X/Y < Yarpha then the company that makes Y isn't liable for damages. What's Yarpha equal to? Yar only knows.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm pretty sure Caution! Contents are HOT! has been printed pretty prominenty on McDonald's coffee cups. In any case, can't people tell how hot that shit is just by touching/looking at it?
I'm tired of people pointing to the McDonald's case and going "BAH! FRIVILOUS LAWSUIT!" when it's anything but. Five pages in, I'm sure you guys have already debunked the idiot several times over.
I'm pretty sure Caution! Contents are HOT! has been printed pretty prominenty on McDonald's coffee cups. In any case, can't people tell how hot that shit is just by touching/looking at it?
I used to be able to tell whether a substance in an insulated container was "hot" or "really, stupidly hot" just by looking at it. But my thermal sensing vision broke.
Jeedan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'm pretty sure Caution! Contents are HOT! has been printed pretty prominenty on McDonald's coffee cups. In any case, can't people tell how hot that shit is just by touching/looking at it?
Oh yes. A time-honored method is to spill it in your fucking lap.
I'm pretty sure Caution! Contents are HOT! has been printed pretty prominenty on McDonald's coffee cups. In any case, can't people tell how hot that shit is just by touching/looking at it?
If it's a non-boiling liquid that will fry your nerve endings the second it hits skin? No.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I'm pretty sure Caution! Contents are HOT! has been printed pretty prominenty on McDonald's coffee cups. In any case, can't people tell how hot that shit is just by touching/looking at it?
I used to be able to tell whether a substance in an insulated container was "hot" or "really, stupidly hot" just by looking at it. But my thermal sensing vision broke.
Technically true, but it requires that the liquid stay that hot during contact. If you spill a 140 degree liquid on yourself - say, a properly heated cup of coffee - it's going to cool extremely rapidly as soon as it contacts your clothes and skin. It may burn you, but not seriously.
I think that would depend on how much coffee you spilled. A little blurb, like from stopping to quickly would cool quite quickly. Dropping the entire 12 ounce cup in your lap would probably stay that warm for more than 5 seconds.
I doubt it. Liquid tends to flow if it's not in, say, a bath tub.
Or a bucket seat?
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Bucket seats aren't real buckets. Also, 12 ounces probably wouldn't be enough to cut it even if you were in a bath tub. I was mostly thinking of parents who scald their kids to death by holding them in tubs full of hot water. The greater volume means that heat's not dissipating nearly quick enough, and it being in a tub means you don't have good old gravity on your side. The alternative would presumably be showers or industrial accidents, where there's a steady stream of 140-degree fluid hitting a person. It doesn't matter that the stuff halfway to the floor is now 110 degrees, since the liquid actually affecting the area at any given time is 140.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
She was wearing sweatpants, which held the liquid against her skin and caused the burns. Had the temperature been much less, like that store keeps it now, it probably would have cooled before a 3rd degree burn.
The odds of getting burnt by McDonald's coffee was demonstrated to be one in 24,000,000. However, even in those 1 in 24 million cases, the culprit was almost always a McDonald's employee spilling the coffee, not the customer. That's why they didn't initially settle in this case like they normally would.
The coffee as served was deemed "unfit for consumption," at least at the moment she spilled it (still in the drive-thru lane), in the trial. Also, jurors felt that McDonald's was trying to use fancy math to claim that the plaintiff didn't actually exist.
Bucket seats aren't real buckets. Also, 12 ounces probably wouldn't be enough to cut it even if you were in a bath tub. I was mostly thinking of parents who scald their kids to death by holding them in tubs full of hot water. The greater volume means that heat's not dissipating nearly quick enough, and it being in a tub means you don't have good old gravity on your side. The alternative would presumably be showers or industrial accidents, where there's a steady stream of 140-degree fluid hitting a person. It doesn't matter that the stuff halfway to the floor is now 110 degrees, since the liquid actually affecting the area at any given time is 140.
You also have to take into account the affect of her pants. Clothing acts at a trap for the liquid, while limiting its exposure to air. It literally stops it from cooling as quickly and traps it against the skin, two things you don't want to happen.
Things that bear repeating here:
McDonalds was selling this coffee from a drive-thru, and were presumably familiar with the fact that American drivers sit on the left-hand side of the car with drink holders generally in the center, and that drivers would therefore be reaching across their body to set the coffee down, presenting the opportunity for a simple fumble and spill onto their lap. (although note that, in this case, she wasn't driving)
Burns decrease in severity exponentially as temperature decreases linearly. That 180 degree serving temperature instead of the "industry standard" 170 is a bigger deal than some are making it out to be.
McDonalds said the higher serving temperature was justified, because most of the consumers intended to drink it at work and wanted it to still be warm then. However, it came out during the trial that their own internal data showed they knew most consumers intended to drink it immediately, and that their serving temperature could not be safely consumed without given significant time to cool.
I'm tired of people pointing to the McDonald's case and going "BAH! FRIVILOUS LAWSUIT!" when it's anything but. Five pages in, I'm sure you guys have already debunked the idiot several times over.
...actually..after reading all the pages in this thread and many others in the past :? i dont think it can be "debunked" one way or the other. The whole thing rests on personal opinion. Some people believe being served scalding hot coffee is bad, others think if you know what your ordering, which i believe she did if i remember correctly, and spill it on yourself, and burn yourself, no matter how badly its your own fault. I dont think either side will ever be swayed to the others viewpoint. So its a pointless discussion.
McDonalds said the higher serving temperature was justified, because most of the consumers intended to drink it at work and wanted it to still be warm then. However, it came out during the trial that their own internal data showed they knew most consumers intended to drink it immediately, and that their serving temperature could not be safely consumed without given significant time to cool.
How does the addition of creamer figure into this? I'd imagine that adding refrigerated creamer to coffee would drop it at least 10-15 degrees.
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.
McDonalds said the higher serving temperature was justified, because most of the consumers intended to drink it at work and wanted it to still be warm then. However, it came out during the trial that their own internal data showed they knew most consumers intended to drink it immediately, and that their serving temperature could not be safely consumed without given significant time to cool.
How does the addition of creamer figure into this? I'd imagine that adding refrigerated creamer to coffee would drop it at least 10-15 degrees.
Isn't that what she was taking the lid off to do when it spilled?
Some people believe being served scalding hot coffee is bad, others think if you know what your ordering, etc
Show me the menu that lists "Scalding hot coffee that has the potential to cause third degree burns."
Well, what the hell did she expect? freezing cold coffee so it has no potential to do any damage whatsoever? When i was young, 9 or 10 years old I spilt boiling water straight out of a kettle onto my foot, giving myself 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns, thankfully the 3rd degree was over a very small area, am I going to sue the company who made the kettle because the water was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? no. And the women had had mcdonalds coffee before, so she knew how hot it was.
When i was young, 9 or 10 years old I spilt boiling water straight out of a kettle onto my foot, giving myself 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns, thankfully the 3rd degree was over a very small area, am I going to sue the company who made the kettle because the water was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? no.
Not at all a valid comparison. You heated it up to a certain temperature on purpose.
When i was young, 9 or 10 years old I spilt boiling water straight out of a kettle onto my foot, giving myself 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns, thankfully the 3rd degree was over a very small area, am I going to sue the company who made the kettle because the water was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? no.
Not at all a valid comparison. You heated it up to a certain temperature on purpose.
But she *knew* how hot it was, she'd bought mcdonalds coffee before, from that exact location if google is telling me right, She bought coffee at that temperature on purpose, so how is the comparison not valid?
When i was young, 9 or 10 years old I spilt boiling water straight out of a kettle onto my foot, giving myself 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns, thankfully the 3rd degree was over a very small area, am I going to sue the company who made the kettle because the water was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? no.
Not at all a valid comparison. You heated it up to a certain temperature on purpose.
But she *knew* how hot it was, she'd bought mcdonalds coffee before, from that exact location if google is telling me right, She bought coffee at that temperature on purpose, so how is the comparison not valid?
How does this follow? Say there are two incidents. The incident that caused the burns, and an incident before, where she learned the temperature of McDonald's coffee.
In the previous incident, if the temperature of the coffee was the same as the temperature of the coffee in the second incident, allowing her to anticipate the temperature in the second incident, as you say, then what stopped the coffee from causing terrible burning to her lips and throat when she learned of the temperature during the first incident?
Simply, if she experienced the temperature of the coffee before, why didn't it burn her so terribly in those previous incidents?
How does this follow? Say there are two incidents. The incident that caused the burns, and an incident before, where she learned the temperature of McDonald's coffee.
In the previous incident, if the temperature of the coffee was the same as the temperature of the coffee in the second incident, allowing her to anticipate the temperature in the second incident, as you say, then what stopped the coffee from causing terrible burning to her lips and throat when she learned of the temperature during the first incident?
Simply, if she experienced the temperature of the coffee before, why didn't it burn her so terribly in those previous incidents?
I think common sense comes into play here somewhere. I think common sense is telling me that there's no difference between a machine operating perfectly and a machine malfunctioning, just-brewed coffee and coffee that is being kept warm, and any other factor that occasionally affects the temperature of hot beverages.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
0
Options
OtakuD00DCan I hit the exploding rocks?San DiegoRegistered Userregular
if you actually read about the case, the reason the old lady won that case is because the hot coffee spilled onto her private parts, which subsequently caused her nylon pants to melt, and she had to have a fuckton of skin grafting afterwards.
No, but they get upset when they spill said beverage, then ask for McD's to pay some medical expenses because of it. If I accidentally shoot myself in the arm with a gun, and it's my own fault/not a faulty gun, then sue the company because it hurt more than I thought it would, then I would be pretty stupid.
No, but if you were injured when your gun randomly discharged because the company intentionally used cheap metal in the firing mechanism to save money, you'd have a case. Especially if it had happened many times before but they maintained their cost/ benefit calculation.
But - guns are dangerous and you knew it when you bought it, so it must be your fault.
But man, I could say the same thing:
But- coffee can be dangerous and you knew that when you bought it, so it must be your fault.
See, I know guns are one thing, but I don't think this is the same as faulty gun. Caution-Hot means it's hot. Yes, it sucks that McD's has crap coffe and they won't adjust it, but honestly, it's not always that hot. Lots of people drink their coffe daily.
Also, the sarcasm earlier was just that. Just pokin' fun...nothing personal.
Ok, lets say you order a cup of coffee and expect it to be drinkable when you get it, so not really paying attention, you take a really big gulp, the scalding hot liquid travels down your asophogus, into your windpipe, burns a hole in your lungs and you die in MCD from a collapsed lung and internal bleeding.
Or how about the scalding liquid travels down your asophogus, and enters your stomach, melting the mucus membrane covering of your stomach and burning your stomach, making one of those painfull things which i cant recall the name of, but they suck, alot.
I suppose its ok, because they knew the coffee was hot?
They're also very powerful, and there's the potential for huge injustices to result from a pro bug-business ruling. Because McDonalds is so powerful, the justice system can afford to err on the side of consumers without inflicting unreasonable loss on the company.
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
Why are we bringing up overcited lawsuits from 10 years ago? Stupid tort reformers.
Accidents happen. Murphy's law says that whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, especially when you sell as many cups as McDonalds does. If accidents are inevitable, then the best solution is to decrease the potential outcomes of them, e.g., by lowering the temperature.
For instance, guy gets in a car crash in an unsafe car, and his kid gets decapitated as a result. Most people, looking at this situation, aren't going to say, "Well, if you're driving at 50 mph and crash into something, of COURSE there's going to be a chance of decapitation. It's basic physics!" No, most reasonable people are going to be asking about whether there were airbags, whether the kid was wearing his seatbelt, whether the car had crash tests to see the effects of car crashes on their passengers, etc. If the car didn't offer seatbelts, airbags, and was poorly designed, didn't do basic crash tests, etc., then you would have reason for complaint.
By the same token, if someone spills coffee on themself and gets third degree burns, the immeadiate question shouldn't be, "Well duh, that's what happens when you spill hot coffee on yourself!" If you sell X million cups a day, then people are going to spill coffee on themselves. The response should be, "Well, why is the coffee hot enough to do that, spilled or not?"
As for the "duty of care" - McDonald's covered that angle pretty well. Experts testified that the number of burns was, statistically, equivalent to zero. Of course, it wasn't zero, but it was effectively zero.
Okay, Ed Norton from Fight Club. Suppose I sell a million candy bars a year, and 10 of them are laced with arsenic. The chances of anyone dying from said candy bars is close to zero. Pretty much 0.001%. Does that make it acceptable? Just out out curiousity, at what point does it become acceptable?
Look at the spinach scare recently. Were the odds of getting e coli from spinach effectively zero? I'm guessing yes. But guess what? They removed it from the shelves anyway, because safety was more important than profits.
And then there's still that warning label, too.
Yes, because warning labels are clearly capable of counteracting the effects of gravity and heat conduction, thus preventing accidents from occuring.
All I can say is fuck you Americans and your Fahrenheit. I'm sitting here reading "the 180 degree serving temperature, compared to 170 makes a big difference" and I'm thinking "170 degrees and we think third degree burns might be avoided!?" But then I realize it's in Fahrenheit.
To be more contributional however: having had years of hearing about this case, in the end I basically have to conclude that the court made the right decision. McDonalds were serving something in a state where, under the circumstances of its serving there was the possibility for real serious harm to people, and as has been said, that the odds are effectively 0, they're still not 0 and as a society we don't approve of just not taking simple measures that would decrease this further.
If what I heard is correct, they were also sued because they claimed their products were "100% Beef" and "Beef" was the name of one of the companies they owned.
I used to think this case was a sign of America becoming too litigious but here are the facts that changed my mind:
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
I agree. And I think the verdict, if not the award, was a good one. But I also don't pretend that McDonalds was uniquely unreasonable for thinking that was a proper temperature. Manyothersourcestend to agree with them.
Yes, because McDonalds is always a stickler for quality. The brewing methods you've linked to seem to be for "ideal" situations and gourmets, and not for the high volume business of "fast food" that McDonalds is geared for. There's a big difference between spending 20 minutes making the perfect cup of company and serving it to important guests in a formal setting where everyone will be served at once at a specified time, and making huge pots of coffee that you place in a cardboard container and hand to a customer through a drive-thru window as they pass through at their own convenience.
Further, your first link shows a graph where as brew time goes up, taste goes down dramatically. It also asserts that the ideal serving temperature is 155-175 F.
Your second link asserts that "The coffee may be held on a burner or on a direct heat source at 185° F for no more than 20 minutes or it will break down and begin to taste bitter." I'm pretty sure that McDonalds holds their coffee for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Your third link states that " The recommended serving temperature for coffee is 75 oC." Or 167 degrees F.
Your fourth link starts that "For coffee, surveys have identified the drinking temperature for optimal flavor to be in the range of 145-160°F. SCAA's Coffee Brewing Handbook cites 155-175°F as the typical temperature ranges used for serving coffee."
McDonalds did not serve their drinks at the temperature they did for the sake of optimum flavor. They served their drinks at the temperature they did because they wanted to save a few pennies by brewing as much coffee from their beans as possible, even as the risk of injury.
See guys, I think this is where we disagree, because i think that label is and should be enough to convey caution. I do expect people to not be stupid.
So only stupid people spill beverages?
I believe that Einstein was famous for being amazingly alert, and Hawking was famous for his amazing hand-eye coordination.
If what I heard is correct, they were also sued because they claimed their products were "100% Beef" and "Beef" was the name of one of the companies they owned.
But maybe that's just a myth.
The truth was that they were sued because they advertised their products were "100% Beef," which, according the plaintiff, implied that beef = healthy and misled him into thinking he was eating healthy since it was 100% beef. He had a point.
I'm still confused as to how you guys accept 175F as a temperature agreed by experts as within the range of "ideal serving temperature," and yet make it 180F and suddenly it's "Christ God Almighty how could you be so negligent?!?!?!"
Coffee is supposed to be hot. How hot? Depends on who's asking. But it is pretty clear from links cited here that the coffee that burned this woman was within as little as 5 degrees F of the ideal serving temperature.
Even if McDonald's ordered that coffee be served at 160F; do that 10 billion times, and then how many times do you think it might reaonably be expected to, for whatever reason, get served at 180 instead? That's where the statistical argument comes in. To guarantee that no single person would ever come into contact with scalding hot coffee over the course of 10 billion cups, they'd have to set the benchmark temperature to be so low that few people would want the majority of it anyway.
Again, it's like suing the razor blade company because you cut yourself. I'm sure you could make all sorts of arguments about the precise sharpness of the blade, and how it wasn't necessary to be that sharp, and you might even be right about it. But you're ignoring the obvious: that razor blades are supposed to be sharp. Coffee is supposed to be hot. If the gap between "ideal" and "negligent" is as little as 5 degrees F, then over the course of 10 billion cups, McDonald's is basically screwed no matter what they do.
Also, coffee isn't meant to be poured on one's self. It's meant to be drank. 180F would not cause the same damage to the lining of the mouth as it would the skin of the crotch.
If what I heard is correct, they were also sued because they claimed their products were "100% Beef" and "Beef" was the name of one of the companies they owned.
But maybe that's just a myth.
The truth was that they were sued because they advertised their products were "100% Beef," which, according the plaintiff, implied that beef = healthy and misled him into thinking he was eating healthy since it was 100% beef. He had a point.
I'm still confused as to how you guys accept 175F as a temperature agreed by experts as within the range of "ideal serving temperature," and yet make it 180F and suddenly it's "Christ God Almighty how could you be so negligent?!?!?!"
Coffee is supposed to be hot. How hot? Depends on who's asking. But it is pretty clear from links cited here that the coffee that burned this woman was within as little as 5 degrees F of the ideal serving temperature.
Even if McDonald's ordered that coffee be served at 160F; do that 10 billion times, and then how many times do you think it might reaonably be expected to, for whatever reason, get served at 180 instead? That's where the statistical argument comes in. To guarantee that no single person would ever come into contact with scalding hot coffee over the course of 10 billion cups, they'd have to set the benchmark temperature to be so low that few people would want the majority of it anyway.
Again, it's like suing the razor blade company because you cut yourself. I'm sure you could make all sorts of arguments about the precise sharpness of the blade, and how it wasn't necessary to be that sharp, and you might even be right about it. But you're ignoring the obvious: that razor blades are supposed to be sharp. Coffee is supposed to be hot. If the gap between "ideal" and "negligent" is as little as 5 degrees F, then over the course of 10 billion cups, McDonald's is basically screwed no matter what they do.
Also, coffee isn't meant to be poured on one's self. It's meant to be drank. 180F would not cause the same damage to the lining of the mouth as it would the skin of the crotch.
Zero.
The coffee was held at 185. Coffee can only be held at this temp for 20 minutes before breaking down. The coffee was supposed to served between 150 and 175 with an optimal temperature at 160 and with an expected temperature when you really drink it or after milk/cream of around 140.
MCD knew that their coffee was "unfit for human consumption" but decided anyway to sell it because they figured lawsuits would be less than lost revenue.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
How many times do we need to repeat this fucking obvious fact before you get it through your thick skull?
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
How many times do we need to repeat this fucking obvious fact before you get it through your thick skull?
You could start by explaining exactly how it increases profits, and we'll go from there. And, again, the judge ruled "unfit for human consumption" to be just barely above "ideal temperature."
It's not merely stastical probability that the coffee was served at temperatures unsafe for human consumption. Back when this story was fresh, various sources bought coffee from various fast food resturants and measured the temperature. McDonald's was always at least 15 degrees hotter than every other place.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
How many times do we need to repeat this fucking obvious fact before you get it through your thick skull?
You could start by explaining exactly how it increases profits, and we'll go from there.
Projected reduced sales from coffee that tasted bad. The extreemly hot coffee[I.E. burns on the inside of the mouth] masked its taste, reducing the temperature made this more noticable. MCD expected less sales from colder coffee.
I'm still confused as to how you guys accept 175F as a temperature agreed by experts as within the range of "ideal serving temperature," and yet make it 180F and suddenly it's "Christ God Almighty how could you be so negligent?!?!?!"
We actually don't know the exact temperate that her coffee was at the time of the incident. We only know that it was enough to cause 3rd degree burns through clothing in a matter of seconds, which 175 F wouldn't have been able to do. In other words, while we don't know how hot the coffee was, we do know it was "hot enough." For all we know, it could have been 200 degrees. We don't know. All we have is a fairly broad range.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. How hot? Depends on who's asking.
I doubt anyone would say "hot enough to cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds."
Even if McDonald's ordered that coffee be served at 160F; do that 10 billion times, and then how many times do you think it might reaonably be expected to, for whatever reason, get served at 180 instead? That's where the statistical argument comes in.
That's where "gross neglience" comes in. Consistently attempting to serve coffee at 160F shows that you're at least TRYING to be responsible. In this case, they weren't.
It's like a bartender that gets caught selling booze to a minor. If it happened because the kid looked like he was in his 30s and had a high quality ID that was given to him by his older brother who looks almost exactly like them, then yeah, we can excuse it. If it happened because the bartender is habitual about letting minors inside without checking ID, then you have a problem.
Again, it's like suing the razor blade company because you cut yourself. I'm sure you could make all sorts of arguments about the precise sharpness of the blade, and how it wasn't necessary to be that sharp, and you might even be right about it. But you're ignoring the obvious: that razor blades are supposed to be sharp. Coffee is supposed to be hot.
Razor blades are supposed to be sharp, because sharper = safer than dull. Are you telling me that McDonalds serves their coffee at such high temperatures for the sake of safety?
Also, coffee isn't meant to be poured on one's self. It's meant to be drank.
Cars aren't meant to be crashed. Guess what? They're still required to have seatbealts and crash tests, because accidents happen.
Posts
Well, he's using the phrase "statistically significant" as a rhetorical device. That phrase means "not due to chance" when comparing two experimental groups or comparing a sample to a population. Since we're not doing anything of the sort, he must just mean the common definition of "significant," as in "Perhaps if the number of accidents is reduced below any significant number?" But, gee, when you put it like that it makes it sound like the cutoff for a "significant number" is less scientific and more arbitrary.
Edit: In fact, maybe we could give it a name. Alpha is the cutoff for statistical significance, so we could call the cutoff for Yar significance Yarpha. Where X is equal to the number of accidents, and Y is equal to the number of units sold, if X/Y < Yarpha then the company that makes Y isn't liable for damages. What's Yarpha equal to? Yar only knows.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You can't argue in circles if you never leave Square One.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I used to be able to tell whether a substance in an insulated container was "hot" or "really, stupidly hot" just by looking at it. But my thermal sensing vision broke.
Oh yes. A time-honored method is to spill it in your fucking lap.
Dammit, you beat me.
Or a bucket seat?
- John Stuart Mill
She was wearing sweatpants, which held the liquid against her skin and caused the burns. Had the temperature been much less, like that store keeps it now, it probably would have cooled before a 3rd degree burn.
The odds of getting burnt by McDonald's coffee was demonstrated to be one in 24,000,000. However, even in those 1 in 24 million cases, the culprit was almost always a McDonald's employee spilling the coffee, not the customer. That's why they didn't initially settle in this case like they normally would.
The coffee as served was deemed "unfit for consumption," at least at the moment she spilled it (still in the drive-thru lane), in the trial. Also, jurors felt that McDonald's was trying to use fancy math to claim that the plaintiff didn't actually exist.
She wasn't driving.
Things that bear repeating here:
McDonalds was selling this coffee from a drive-thru, and were presumably familiar with the fact that American drivers sit on the left-hand side of the car with drink holders generally in the center, and that drivers would therefore be reaching across their body to set the coffee down, presenting the opportunity for a simple fumble and spill onto their lap. (although note that, in this case, she wasn't driving)
Burns decrease in severity exponentially as temperature decreases linearly. That 180 degree serving temperature instead of the "industry standard" 170 is a bigger deal than some are making it out to be.
McDonalds said the higher serving temperature was justified, because most of the consumers intended to drink it at work and wanted it to still be warm then. However, it came out during the trial that their own internal data showed they knew most consumers intended to drink it immediately, and that their serving temperature could not be safely consumed without given significant time to cool.
...actually..after reading all the pages in this thread and many others in the past :? i dont think it can be "debunked" one way or the other. The whole thing rests on personal opinion. Some people believe being served scalding hot coffee is bad, others think if you know what your ordering, which i believe she did if i remember correctly, and spill it on yourself, and burn yourself, no matter how badly its your own fault. I dont think either side will ever be swayed to the others viewpoint. So its a pointless discussion.
How does the addition of creamer figure into this? I'd imagine that adding refrigerated creamer to coffee would drop it at least 10-15 degrees.
Show me the menu that lists "Scalding hot coffee that has the potential to cause third degree burns."
Well, what the hell did she expect? freezing cold coffee so it has no potential to do any damage whatsoever? When i was young, 9 or 10 years old I spilt boiling water straight out of a kettle onto my foot, giving myself 1st 2nd and 3rd degree burns, thankfully the 3rd degree was over a very small area, am I going to sue the company who made the kettle because the water was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns? no. And the women had had mcdonalds coffee before, so she knew how hot it was.
Not at all a valid comparison. You heated it up to a certain temperature on purpose.
But she *knew* how hot it was, she'd bought mcdonalds coffee before, from that exact location if google is telling me right, She bought coffee at that temperature on purpose, so how is the comparison not valid?
Yeah but between her first visit and her second visit her thermal sensing vision broke.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How does this follow? Say there are two incidents. The incident that caused the burns, and an incident before, where she learned the temperature of McDonald's coffee.
In the previous incident, if the temperature of the coffee was the same as the temperature of the coffee in the second incident, allowing her to anticipate the temperature in the second incident, as you say, then what stopped the coffee from causing terrible burning to her lips and throat when she learned of the temperature during the first incident?
Simply, if she experienced the temperature of the coffee before, why didn't it burn her so terribly in those previous incidents?
I think common sense comes into play here somewhere. I think common sense is telling me that there's no difference between a machine operating perfectly and a machine malfunctioning, just-brewed coffee and coffee that is being kept warm, and any other factor that occasionally affects the temperature of hot beverages.
Oh dear god that's gruesome.
Ok, lets say you order a cup of coffee and expect it to be drinkable when you get it, so not really paying attention, you take a really big gulp, the scalding hot liquid travels down your asophogus, into your windpipe, burns a hole in your lungs and you die in MCD from a collapsed lung and internal bleeding.
Or how about the scalding liquid travels down your asophogus, and enters your stomach, melting the mucus membrane covering of your stomach and burning your stomach, making one of those painfull things which i cant recall the name of, but they suck, alot.
I suppose its ok, because they knew the coffee was hot?
Incorrect, the law specifically states that punative damages are to be reasonable for the size of the company.
Accidents happen. Murphy's law says that whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, especially when you sell as many cups as McDonalds does. If accidents are inevitable, then the best solution is to decrease the potential outcomes of them, e.g., by lowering the temperature.
For instance, guy gets in a car crash in an unsafe car, and his kid gets decapitated as a result. Most people, looking at this situation, aren't going to say, "Well, if you're driving at 50 mph and crash into something, of COURSE there's going to be a chance of decapitation. It's basic physics!" No, most reasonable people are going to be asking about whether there were airbags, whether the kid was wearing his seatbelt, whether the car had crash tests to see the effects of car crashes on their passengers, etc. If the car didn't offer seatbelts, airbags, and was poorly designed, didn't do basic crash tests, etc., then you would have reason for complaint.
By the same token, if someone spills coffee on themself and gets third degree burns, the immeadiate question shouldn't be, "Well duh, that's what happens when you spill hot coffee on yourself!" If you sell X million cups a day, then people are going to spill coffee on themselves. The response should be, "Well, why is the coffee hot enough to do that, spilled or not?"
Okay, Ed Norton from Fight Club. Suppose I sell a million candy bars a year, and 10 of them are laced with arsenic. The chances of anyone dying from said candy bars is close to zero. Pretty much 0.001%. Does that make it acceptable? Just out out curiousity, at what point does it become acceptable?
Look at the spinach scare recently. Were the odds of getting e coli from spinach effectively zero? I'm guessing yes. But guess what? They removed it from the shelves anyway, because safety was more important than profits.
Yes, because warning labels are clearly capable of counteracting the effects of gravity and heat conduction, thus preventing accidents from occuring.
To be more contributional however: having had years of hearing about this case, in the end I basically have to conclude that the court made the right decision. McDonalds were serving something in a state where, under the circumstances of its serving there was the possibility for real serious harm to people, and as has been said, that the odds are effectively 0, they're still not 0 and as a society we don't approve of just not taking simple measures that would decrease this further.
I remember hearing something about that.
Judge threw it out. The system continues to work.
But maybe that's just a myth.
Yes, because McDonalds is always a stickler for quality. The brewing methods you've linked to seem to be for "ideal" situations and gourmets, and not for the high volume business of "fast food" that McDonalds is geared for. There's a big difference between spending 20 minutes making the perfect cup of company and serving it to important guests in a formal setting where everyone will be served at once at a specified time, and making huge pots of coffee that you place in a cardboard container and hand to a customer through a drive-thru window as they pass through at their own convenience.
Further, your first link shows a graph where as brew time goes up, taste goes down dramatically. It also asserts that the ideal serving temperature is 155-175 F.
Your second link asserts that "The coffee may be held on a burner or on a direct heat source at 185° F for no more than 20 minutes or it will break down and begin to taste bitter." I'm pretty sure that McDonalds holds their coffee for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Your third link states that " The recommended serving temperature for coffee is 75 oC." Or 167 degrees F.
Your fourth link starts that "For coffee, surveys have identified the drinking temperature for optimal flavor to be in the range of 145-160°F. SCAA's Coffee Brewing Handbook cites 155-175°F as the typical temperature ranges used for serving coffee."
McDonalds did not serve their drinks at the temperature they did for the sake of optimum flavor. They served their drinks at the temperature they did because they wanted to save a few pennies by brewing as much coffee from their beans as possible, even as the risk of injury.
I believe that Einstein was famous for being amazingly alert, and Hawking was famous for his amazing hand-eye coordination.
I'm still confused as to how you guys accept 175F as a temperature agreed by experts as within the range of "ideal serving temperature," and yet make it 180F and suddenly it's "Christ God Almighty how could you be so negligent?!?!?!"
Coffee is supposed to be hot. How hot? Depends on who's asking. But it is pretty clear from links cited here that the coffee that burned this woman was within as little as 5 degrees F of the ideal serving temperature.
Even if McDonald's ordered that coffee be served at 160F; do that 10 billion times, and then how many times do you think it might reaonably be expected to, for whatever reason, get served at 180 instead? That's where the statistical argument comes in. To guarantee that no single person would ever come into contact with scalding hot coffee over the course of 10 billion cups, they'd have to set the benchmark temperature to be so low that few people would want the majority of it anyway.
Again, it's like suing the razor blade company because you cut yourself. I'm sure you could make all sorts of arguments about the precise sharpness of the blade, and how it wasn't necessary to be that sharp, and you might even be right about it. But you're ignoring the obvious: that razor blades are supposed to be sharp. Coffee is supposed to be hot. If the gap between "ideal" and "negligent" is as little as 5 degrees F, then over the course of 10 billion cups, McDonald's is basically screwed no matter what they do.
Also, coffee isn't meant to be poured on one's self. It's meant to be drank. 180F would not cause the same damage to the lining of the mouth as it would the skin of the crotch.
Zero.
The coffee was held at 185. Coffee can only be held at this temp for 20 minutes before breaking down. The coffee was supposed to served between 150 and 175 with an optimal temperature at 160 and with an expected temperature when you really drink it or after milk/cream of around 140.
MCD knew that their coffee was "unfit for human consumption" but decided anyway to sell it because they figured lawsuits would be less than lost revenue.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
MCD decided to sell something unfit for human consumption because they could increase profits.
How many times do we need to repeat this fucking obvious fact before you get it through your thick skull?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Projected reduced sales from coffee that tasted bad. The extreemly hot coffee[I.E. burns on the inside of the mouth] masked its taste, reducing the temperature made this more noticable. MCD expected less sales from colder coffee.
We actually don't know the exact temperate that her coffee was at the time of the incident. We only know that it was enough to cause 3rd degree burns through clothing in a matter of seconds, which 175 F wouldn't have been able to do. In other words, while we don't know how hot the coffee was, we do know it was "hot enough." For all we know, it could have been 200 degrees. We don't know. All we have is a fairly broad range.
I doubt anyone would say "hot enough to cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds."
That's where "gross neglience" comes in. Consistently attempting to serve coffee at 160F shows that you're at least TRYING to be responsible. In this case, they weren't.
It's like a bartender that gets caught selling booze to a minor. If it happened because the kid looked like he was in his 30s and had a high quality ID that was given to him by his older brother who looks almost exactly like them, then yeah, we can excuse it. If it happened because the bartender is habitual about letting minors inside without checking ID, then you have a problem.
Razor blades are supposed to be sharp, because sharper = safer than dull. Are you telling me that McDonalds serves their coffee at such high temperatures for the sake of safety?
Cars aren't meant to be crashed. Guess what? They're still required to have seatbealts and crash tests, because accidents happen.