The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I also think that McDs fucked up royaly, a) because they miscalculated by going to trial (corporate hubris) and b) they failed to respond to the evidence properly.
So they were right, they just did a poor job of proving it.
Being right has nothing to do with a good legal argument!
Yes, it's mathematically determinable from what we've already discussed here. Try to keep up.
McDonalds accounts for 20 samples out of 38. Nine of McDonalds samples are in the top 12, which means that 11 of their samples are in the bottom 26. The problem is, you have no idea where in the bottom 26 they are, and you have no idea how much of a temperature difference there is between number 1 and number 12, or between number 12 and number 13.
All temperature increases are exponentially more likely to cause a burn.
Thus making your "almost identical" comment grossly misleading.
In other words, no, I absolutely have never confused brewing temps with serving temps.
"But this ridiculously high temperature was about 10 degrees less than the lowest temperature at which it is generally recommended to brew coffee, and about 10 degrees more than the highest temperature at which it is generally recommended to serve coffee, it really isn't that hard to understand, especially considering they are a quick service restaurant, so you'd naturally assume the temp might still be somewhere between ideal brewing and ideal serving when it first gets handed to you. Hence the warning label."
Why are you bringing up the brewing temps at all if you're not trying to confuse them?
Yeah, good point. Adding cream really cools coffee off. So you sort of have to serve it pretty hot if any two-or-more-creamer is ever going to be able to drink warm coffee from your store.
Part of the reason people put cream in their coffee is specifically because they don't want it that hot. Among other things, adding cream improves the flavor. Improving the flavor means not having to burn your tastebuds.
But my own personal view is that McDonalds clearly put profits before customer saftey.
Several cases have ruled that they do not. One case ruled that they did, and was settled before appeal. But your personal view is what it is.
It is, but just so that you don't mistake me for some kind of freedom-hater who wants everyone swaddled in cotton, I do have sound legal principles to back up my opinion.
As I mentioned before, McDonalds is not the average defendant, and it would be unjust to measure them by the same standard we apply to every other cafe or coffee-seller.
1) They sell coffee to a vast section of society. Joe's Diner in Bumfuck Alabama has a potential customer base in the thousands. McDonalds has a potential customer base in the billions. Because there are so many people buying their coffee every day, any risk to the consumer is magnified.
2) The have the resources and ability to easily minimise the risk. For example, it would cost them next-to-nothing to change business practices, include a larger warning label, etc.
3) They can absorb loss with greater capacity than the average defendant. They are a massive business. If they loose money on coffee because they have to reduce the temperature - so be it. They can raise the cost of other menu items by a fraction of a cent and probably still come out on top. Furthermore, they're a large, diversified business - meaning that a lot of their money isn't even tied up in the restaraunt business.
If it means that no-one is burned by their coffee, I think it's acceptable to have McDonalds serve it at a lower temperature. They can absorb the loss, they have a higher standard of care to uphold, and it's debatable how much profits they would lose in any case.
McDonalds accounts for 20 samples out of 38. Nine of McDonalds samples are in the top 12, which means that 11 of their samples are in the bottom 26. The problem is, you have no idea where in the bottom 26 they are, and you have no idea how much of a temperature difference there is between number 1 and number 12, or between number 12 and number 13.
Why are you bringing up the brewing temps at all if you're not trying to confuse them?
Because in order to get from brewing temp to serving temp, you must pass all temps in between. So at a quick-serve facility, you might expect your coffee to be somewhere between ideal brewing and ideal serving when it's handed to you. It doesn't really matter, though, because even the industry standard ideal serving temperature causes 3rd degree burns in seconds. This seems to be the key point upon which all of you are so woefully ignorant.
Part of the reason people put cream in their coffee is specifically because they don't want it that hot. Among other things, adding cream improves the flavor. Improving the flavor means not having to burn your tastebuds.
That was a big circle of nonsense. The point is that many people want it hot and creamy. Which means it has to be even hotter than hot before cream is added.
It's cute that you think there is no significance whatsoever that other cases have specifically ruled that McDonald's is not negligent in their coffee-serving practices. But you are wrong.
Just to reiterate: the industry-accepted serving temperature for coffee, adopted by Starbucks, Wendy's, Dunkin' Donuts, and just about everywhere, causes 3rd degree burns in seconds. That is the more technical explanation of what most people deem "common sense." Coffee is hot; be careful.
Just because I can prove that there's demand for a motorcycle that shoots flames out of the front instead of headlights and pops wheelies at the touch of a button (and I'll bet I could) doesn't mean I should be legally in the clear if I decide to sell them with a smell "warning: dangerous" sticker on them.
Consumer demand shouldn't, and apparently does not, overrule safety considerations.
Consumer demand shouldn't, and apparently does not, overrule safety considerations.
Fine, outlaw coffee. All major retailers of it serve it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. And that isn't some fringe demand - it's what the majority of customers want.
Name some court cases in the US where a person suffered similar burns and lost the case.
I already did. McMahon v. Bunn-o-matic is one. 179F. Third degree burns. Settlements all around. But when it went to court, it was determined that the temperature was reasonable, and that the buyer needs to beware when buying a hot item. Every case like this that has ever gone to trial sided with the defense, except this one exception.
Warning consumers about a surprising feature that is potentially dangerous yet hard to observe could be useful, but the record lacks any evidence that 179 degrees F is unusually hot for coffee. Neither side submitted evidence about the range of temperatures used by commercial coffee makers, or even about the range of temperatures for Bunn's line of products. The McMahons essentially ask us to take judicial notice that 179 degrees is abnormal, but this is not the sort of incontestable fact for which proof is unnecessary.
In the McDonald's case, evidence was provided that the coffee was unusually hot for coffee.
Consumer demand shouldn't, and apparently does not, overrule safety considerations.
Fine, outlaw coffee. All major retailers of it serve it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. And that isn't some fringe demand - it's what the majority of customers want.
My bad, popular demand shouldn't overrule safety considerations. If I go into a coffeehouse and ask for my coffee "extra hot," it's 100% up to me to be extra careful with it.
Every time I go to Starbuck's and get their drip coffee, it's lukewarm at best. :P
A notable case in the U.K. is Bogle v. McD's. Here's three of my favorite sections of the judgment:
Thank you for that important operative.
A notable case in the U.K. a very very corporate friendly enviornment.
Which, get this... Happened in 2002.
You would notice that this is
A: After the case in question in the States
and
B: After MCD changed their policy by court order.
and the big one
C. Note that in that case, the judge deemed that the plantif was incorrect as for the serving temperature of the drink, and there was no evidence as to the exact serving temperature
D Ill just quote this next section
# It is inevitable that there will be occasions when hot drinks are spilled notwithstanding that they have been served in a lidded foam cup. A hot drink served at temperatures between 78.88 C and 90 C would cause a deep thickness burn if it spilled onto a visitor and was in contact with his skin for little more than a second. McDonald's knew that there was a risk of injury of this sort if a hot drink was spilled. It follows, submits Mr. Horlock Q.C. for the claimants, that McDonald's were negligent in serving hot drinks at the temperatures they did.
# If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.
This is a false dichotomy. I dont know the Law in the U.K. but in the U.S. the law has to do with exceeding reasonable expectations of danger. The Judge in the U.K. says "well if MCD isnt supposed to serve coffee that can cause third degree burns, then they obviously arent supposed to serve coffee that can cause any type of scalding burn"
The number of people who get killed driving drunk compared to the number of people who drive drunk is propably statistically so small as to be effectively zero.
Except it's not. Alcohol accounts for almost half of all traffic fatalities, and 1 out of 10 people can expect to be in an alcohol-related auto accident at some point in their life. I've never heard of any study that does not conclude a significant increased risk of accident by driving drunk as opposed to sober.
Except that wasnt the question numb nuts. The question was
"Is the number of people who get into accidents drunk driving compared to the number of people drunk driving effectivly zero?" I would wager that its pretty close, the number of people over the legal limit any night are staggeringly high, the number of traffic accidents pretty low.
Alcahol does INCREASE the chance of getting into an accident by quite a lot, but that does not mean that the chance still isnt "statistically zero".
Here is an example from a data set I had the ability to examine back in the day. Smoking causes cancer. About 1% of people who dont smoke in their lifetime will get lung cancer in their life, about 4% of people who smoke at least 10 pack/years will get lung cancer sometime in their life. Now, this means that smokers are 400% more likly to get cancer than non-smokers. However, the chance of you getting lung cancer if you are a smoker is still very small, and you have to smoke for a very long time to really increase that chance.
Such, you could be 10 times more likly to get into an accident when you are drunk, but if there is only a .00000000001% chance you will get into an accident when you are sober then for any paticular trip made you will most likly be fine.
Consumer demand shouldn't, and apparently does not, overrule safety considerations.
Fine, outlaw coffee. All major retailers of it serve it at temperatures that cause 3rd degree burns in seconds. And that isn't some fringe demand - it's what the majority of customers want.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
By the by, the difference between 1 second and 2 second burning time is pretty damn significant. Especially if we assume that you have a reaction time of something like 1 second.
I didn't really go through the numbers in detail yet, but there was that document way back that I used to ballpark that 10 degree difference in liquid temperature halves that time.
Also, Yar's statistics... Neither the numbers 1 nor 24 million are relevant to determining whether the temperature of the liquid is hazardous.
... Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
... Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
... Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
Man. Did I call it or what.
It doesn't reinforce your point.[/quote]
I wasn't actually trying to make one when I brought it up. I was dizzy.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
No, that is not true.
Yeah, it is. You're talking about one very un-scientific study performed by the plaintiff's attorney, where the results were presented in a very misleading and inconclusive manner. On the other hand, Jeff and I have linked tons of verifiable facts from reputable sources, as well as testimony and decisions in other cases, demonstrating that yes, all major coffee sellers sell coffee at 3rd degree scalding temperatures. McD's had another 3rd degree burn case in 2004, by the way.
That is indisputable fact. It is not a false dichotomy. It is a real dichotomy. There is no middle. If the coffee is hot enough to be aromatic and mask its cheap flavor and remain hot even after adding cream or driving to work, which is what customers want, then it must necessarily be hot enough to cause 3rd degree scalding in 2 seconds. The math and evidence on all this is clear. That was the exact ruling in the U.K. case as well as every other U.S. case - that there is no possible temperature at which coffee consumers at any restauarant will be happy but yet 3rd degree burns are impossible. That is what all other cited facts in this thread clearly illustrate, other than a single exception of a very poorly defended litigation that never should have gone as far as it did, and would have most likely been overturned on appeal.
One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns. All major sellers of coffee, as well as any expert you can find, recommend coffee be served above this temperature. The makers of automatic restaurant coffee machines all set holding temperatures much higher than this. You guys are being obstinate in the face of fucking irrefutable common sense. McD's fucked up an easy win worse than Kerry did.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
No, that is not true.
On the other hand, Jeff and I have linked tons of verifiable facts, as well as other cases, demonstrating that yes, everyone major coffee seller sells coffe at 3rd degree scalding temperatures.
If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste.
Notice how it says that it should be around 180 degrees if it will be a few minutes before it is served. McDonalds serves the coffee to people who will immediately drink it.
Notice how it says that it should be around 180 degrees if it will be a few minutes before it is served. McDonalds serves the coffee to people who will immediately drink it.
This is ridiculous. You are stretching way too hard at this point.
First of all, you are quite dishonestly twisting the meaning of the source you're quoting. That article says brew at 190 - 205 and serve immediately. It then goes on to say that if you can't serve it immediately, keep it at 180 - 185. Because the flavor will degrade slower at that temp than at the higher one. You completely reversed the meaning of "a few minutes." They were not saying to make it 180, then take it off the heat and wait a few minutes, and then serve it. They were saying serve it immediately (190 - 205), or, non-ideal, serve it at 180 a few minutes later.
Secondly, just google "ideal serving temperature", coffee. You may find 155F as the bare minimum, but most say 160 - 200F, usually 178F. Then google "scalding temperature." 160F for 1 second is 3rd degree burns. I'd like to know what the imaginary "excluded middle" is. The overwhelming agreement among all industry leaders and authoritative sources is that the ideal serving temperature for coffee is well above that which can cause 3rd burns almost instantly.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
No, that is not true.
On the other hand, Jeff and I have linked tons of verifiable facts, as well as other cases, demonstrating that yes, everyone major coffee seller sells coffe at 3rd degree scalding temperatures.
If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste.
Notice how it says that it should be around 180 degrees if it will be a few minutes before it is served. McDonalds serves the coffee to people who will immediately drink it.
It says it should be maintained at that temperature, i.e. keep it at 180-185 until it is served, not heat it to that point and let it cool for those few minutes.
No, it says it cant be maintained at that temperature up to twenty minutes.
No, it says it cant be maintained at that temperature up to twenty minutes.
No, all of you, stop fucking lying!
It very clearly says brew at 195 to 205 and serve immediately!! Does being wrong hurt so bad that you can't even comprehend reading anymore?
The whole 180 - 185 thing is only in the very clearly stated non-ideal situation where it can't be served immediately. If it can't be served immediately, then keeping it at 195 - 205 will cause the flavor to degrade very quickly, so you should keep it at 180 - 185 so that it can last a few minutes. Anything cooler than that will cause it to lose its "optimal flavor notes." But even then it will degrade after 15 minutes (elsewhere on the site it says up to 60 minutes at that temperature if properly sealed).
Regardless, nowhere at all does it ever mention a temperature that is anything but well above what causes 3rd degree scalding almost instantly. Because properly served coffee will burn you.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
No, that is not true.
Yeah, it is. You're talking about one very un-scientific study performed by the plaintiff's attorney, where the results were presetned in a very misleading and inconclusive manner.
Right. Because I'm sure that not one person in a 12 person jury knew anything about how they like their coffee.
On the other hand, Jeff and I have linked tons of verifiable facts from reputable sources
Which were taken outside of the original context and/or cited incorrectly.
For instance, if the one page states that the ideal serving temperature is 155-175 F, you can't just insist that serving it 180-190 F will is within those guidelines.
If the coffee is hot enough to be aromatic and mask its cheap flavor and remain hot even after adding cream or driving to work, which is what customers want, then it must necessarily be hot enough to cause 3rd degree scalding in 2 seconds.
The aromatics are based on boiling points of certain molecules. If the guidelines call for you to heat the stuff up to 175 degrees for optimal release and serve immeadiately, then guess what will happen if you heat the stuff up to 180-190 degrees for extended periods of time, in an effort to make it so that it only reaches 175 degrees after an extended period of time with the addition of new ingredients?
Oh, that's right, by then, everything will have already boiled away. Which is part of the reason why they specifically recomend that you don't do that. Geez, you don't think that there might be some sort of internal logic behind this, do you?
This is like a recipe that calls for you to cook a steak until the center reaches X degrees, and you thinking, "Well, I'm not going to eat that steak immeadiately, but clearly, the center should be about that hot by the time I do. So instead, I'm going to turn up the temperature up twice as high, cook it three times as long, and that way, if I leave it out for a half hour after I'm done cooking it, the center will be the right temperature by the time I'm done, and the steak will come out perfect!"
In a nutshell, no. No it won't.
First of all, you are quite dishonestly twisting the meaning of the source you're quoting. That article says brew at 190 - 205 and serve immediately.
Yes, and for how long?
"In a drip system, the contact time should be approximately 5 minutes. If you are making your coffee using a plunger pot, the contact time should be 2-4 minutes."
It then goes on to say that if you can't serve it immediately, keep it at 180 - 185
...For no more than 15 minutes, "because it will begin to develop a burned taste."
It very clearly says brew at 195 to 205 and serve immediately!! Does being wrong hurt so bad that you can't even comprehend reading anymore?
And you wonder why people accuse you of confusing brew temp with serving temp.
Anything cooler than that will cause it to lose its "optimal flavor notes."
Look, under the conditions that McDonalds serves their coffee at, those "flavor notes" are long gone. That's assuming that they were ever available in the first place. Here's what else the page recomends:
"Purchase coffee as soon after it has been roasted as possible. Fresh roasted coffee is essential to a superb cup of coffee. And purchase your coffee in small amounts -- only as much as you can use in a given period of time. Ideally you should purchase your coffee fresh every 1-2 weeks"
If you purchase whole bean coffee, always grind your beans as close to the brew time as possible. A burr or mill grinder is preferable because all of the coffee is ground to a consistent size. A blade grinder is less preferable because some coffee will be ground more finely than the rest. If you normally grind your coffee at home with a blade grinder, try having it ground at the store with a burr grinder. You may be surprised at the difference!
Just out of curiousity, does McDonalds follow these guidelines as well?
You might as well argue that it's okay if McDonalds starts selling uncooked fish sandwiches, because hey, sushi chefs prepare raw fish all time, and clearly they know what they're doing!
I can't belive you guys are using a national coffee drinker's site to talk about McDonalds coffee.
That's like going to a french school of cooking for guidelines on how they should make their burgers.
Yar - McDonalds serves coffee to everyone. Cautious and stupid alike, disabled people, illiterate people, people who brew coffee at home and people who don't. I'm sorry that this offends you so much, but they are so big that they cannot be measured by ordinary standards. We demand more from them because it is in their power to do more. They are so big that they have to work much harder to avoid liability. That's the way it goes.
It is a natural function of our system of civil liability that the larger a company gets, the higher the risks it faces. That is why most peak companies are diversified to the point that they're no longer dependent on their core industry to survive. It's a limitation of the system. You might hate it, but it's perfectly just.
McDonalds cannot serve coffee in the traditional sense. By virtue of their size they must serve a coffee-like beverage, in the same way that they don't serve cooking in a natural sense of the word. If you don't like it - buy your coffee from a smaller retailer that has less liability overheads, have it as hot as you like, and if you spill it all over your pereneum, rest easily in the knowledge that any action you bring against them will probably fail.
I can't belive you guys are using a national coffee drinker's site to talk about McDonalds coffee.
That's like going to a french school of cooking for guidelines on how they should make their burgers.
Yar - McDonalds serves coffee to everyone. Cautious and stupid alike, disabled people, illiterate people, people who brew coffee at home and people who don't. I'm sorry that this offends you so much, but they are so big that they cannot be measured by ordinary standards. We demand more from them because it is in their power to do more. They are so big that they have to work much harder to avoid liability. That's the way it goes.
It is a natural function of our system of civil liability that the larger a company gets, the higher the risks it faces. That is why most peak companies are diversified to the point that they're no longer dependent on their core industry to survive. It's a limitation of the system. You might hate it, but it's perfectly just.
McDonalds cannot serve coffee in the traditional sense. By virtue of their size they must serve a coffee-like beverage, in the same way that they don't serve cooking in a natural sense of the word. If you don't like it - buy your coffee from a smaller retailer that has less liability overheads, have it as hot as you like, and if you spill it all over your pereneum, rest easily in the knowledge that any action you bring against them will probably fail.
This is the only remaining dignified argument at this point. But I still disagree. I do not think that being large means you necessarily must forgo any assumption of common sense regarding how something should served. Your argument seems to be" McDonald's is so big that even thigns that aren't their fault are still their fault, and they should be forced to sell inferior products because of this."
I can't find that. But is it strange because I missed it, or strange because those are still 3rd degree scalding temperatures?
It was in one of the links that Jeffe provided, and which you referred to.
"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."
That comes from the Boyd Coffee Company.
If the coffee is 185 degrees by the time it reached the customer, exchanges hands, etc., then it was at least that temperature when it left the pot. And again, I doubt that they only left it at that temperature for 20 minutes at a time.
Also note that brewing coffee is not an instant process.
Take for instance espresso.
Espresso is brewed around 202f, then it is poured into steamed milk no hotter than 160f[because it burns any hotter than that] and mixed and served.
Drip Coffee is brewed at around 190-200, then it sits in a pot while the rest of the liquid brews. Then it is served after it has has dripped. It has had about 5 minutes of cooling time.
This is why you do not serve at those temperatures, you simply brew at those temperatures, and why there is a difference, a large difference between brew temperature and serving temperature.
This is the only remaining dignified argument at this point. But I still disagree. I do not think that being large means you necessarily must forgo any assumption of common sense regarding how something should served. Your argument seems to be" McDonald's is so big that even thigns that aren't their fault are still their fault, and they should be forced to sell inferior products because of this."
Boundaries of tort liability aren't fixed. They aren't like constitutional rights. They're fluid - it's a function of how they work. Tort law is concerned with the obligations we all have towards one another. If companies A and B are different, it's a flow-on effect that their obligations to consumers are different.
It's a false dichotomy to think of safety as a binary on-off. There is not one magic temperature at which coffee becomes safe or not safe - that's what you've been arguing, and that's 100% correct. However, the law cannot function unless it creates artificial boundaries to decide what is and is not safe. Sometimes it's clearcut. Sometimes it's an issue of fine-tuning, as it is here.
In tort law, that boundary of what is and is not safe changes in accordance with the legal relationship between parties. The more power Company A has, the stricter the standard it is judged by, and suddenly what's "safe" for Company A is no longer the same as what's "safe" for B.
It's a natural function of obligations that the more powerful someone is, the more obligations they're under - because they pose more of a risk to those around it than a smaller individual would.
I'll be honest and say that I believe the law of torts is currently pretty ill-equipped to deal with entities as large as McDonalds. We've had a lot of liability legislation and payment caps in Australia that are a reaction to the same argument you're bringing up - but I'm of the opinion that they breed as much injustice as they avoid. Tort law is a law of balance - much more so than other laws - and any limitation on that balance limits the effectiveness of the law.
You're well within your rights to argue that the balance is off in this case, but I just want you to understand that I'm not naive in arguing that McDonalds should be liable, and that I'm not taking my position based on a gut reaction.
No, Zzetrek, what is "safe" does not change, the expectation that the company is able to know what is and isnt safe changes.
MCD knew it wasnt safe, that is why they lost.
No, what's safe does change. This is exactly the same discussion we had a few pages ago!
The larger the company, the higher the standard of care.
If I am a small trucking hire company, it's not reasonable for the courts to hold be me liable because I don't have the latest GPS software on my trucks. If I am the largest trucking hire company in the world, it may be.
No, Zzetrek, what is "safe" does not change, the expectation that the company is able to know what is and isnt safe changes.
MCD knew it wasnt safe, that is why they lost.
No, what's safe does change. This is exactly the same discussion we had a few pages ago!
The larger the company, the higher the standard of care.
If I am a small trucking hire company, it's not reasonable for the courts to hold be me liable because I don't have the latest GPS software on my trucks. If I am the largest trucking hire company in the world, it may be.
You are confusing what is considered safe, and what you are liable for. You are liable for things you know, ought to know and can act upon. Liability changes, standard of care does not.
No, Zzetrek, what is "safe" does not change, the expectation that the company is able to know what is and isnt safe changes.
MCD knew it wasnt safe, that is why they lost.
No, what's safe does change. This is exactly the same discussion we had a few pages ago!
The larger the company, the higher the standard of care.
If I am a small trucking hire company, it's not reasonable for the courts to hold be me liable because I don't have the latest GPS software on my trucks. If I am the largest trucking hire company in the world, it may be.
You are confusing what is considered safe, and what you are liable for. You are liable for things you know, ought to know and can act upon. Liability changes, standard of care does not.
"When determining the standard of care, the probability of the risk materialising as well as the gravity if it were to occur are balanced against the social utiltity of the defendent's conduct and the practicability of the precautions necessary to reasonably guard against a foreseeable risk. Weighing (i) probability and (ii) gravity against (iii) practicability of precautions and (iv) social utility is often refered to as the 'calculus of negligence' (United States v Carroll Towing Co)... One of the most important factors or elements of the calculus involves the nature of practicable precautions the defendant ought to have taken or implemented..."
Yes, the standard of care applied to a defendent changes. This is a fundamental tenant of Tort law.
I guess im just using an incorrect definition of standard of care.
You're half right.
The standard of care is decided on an objective standard: ie, what would a reasonable man have done to avoid liability were he in the defendent's position? In that sense, it's fixed.
However, it's a bit more complicated than that, in that the characteristics of the defendant are taken into account when determining the standard of care, along with social utility considerations. For example, if the defendent is a doctor in a medical negligence case it's manifestly unjust to judge him by the standard of a reasonable man, because he's a goddamn doctor and has special training and obligations. As I said, tort law is a law of obligations, and different people have different standards of obligation to one another. The calculus of negligence is one of the ways of determining those obligations.
I guess im just using an incorrect definition of standard of care.
You're half right.
The standard of care is decided on an objective standard: ie, what would a reasonable man have done to avoid liability were he in the defendent's position? In that sense, it's fixed.
However, it's a bit more complicated than that, in that the characteristics of the defendant are taken into account when determining the standard of care, along with social utility considerations. For example, if the defendent is a doctor in a medical negligence case it's manifestly unjust to judge him by the standard of a reasonable man, because he's a goddamn doctor and has special training and obligations. As I said, tort law is a law of obligations, and different people have different standards of obligation to one another. The calculus of negligence is one of the ways of determining those obligations.
That is the way I understood it, just a misunderstanding then.
I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.
It very clearly says brew at 195 to 205 and serve immediately!! Does being wrong hurt so bad that you can't even comprehend reading anymore?
My point has always been that I (and the courts, apparently) don't give a shit what temperature is recommended for optimum flavor or brewing or whatever. If it's hot enough to cause permanent damage in a matter of seconds, it's too fucking hot.
McDonalds should have settled immediately when the old lady was only asking for doctor's fees. They didn't, and that was stupid, and this is what happened.
Look, when you run a study saying that you know that boiling hot coffee will be spilled on a "statistically insignificant" number of people, resulting in severe burns, then fucking pay them the "statistically insignificant" hospital bills, or lower the temperature of your fucking coffee. If you don't, then you will find that judges try to make sure that "punitive damages" don't fall under the category of "statistically insignificant".
Posts
McDonalds accounts for 20 samples out of 38. Nine of McDonalds samples are in the top 12, which means that 11 of their samples are in the bottom 26. The problem is, you have no idea where in the bottom 26 they are, and you have no idea how much of a temperature difference there is between number 1 and number 12, or between number 12 and number 13.
Thus making your "almost identical" comment grossly misleading.
"But this ridiculously high temperature was about 10 degrees less than the lowest temperature at which it is generally recommended to brew coffee, and about 10 degrees more than the highest temperature at which it is generally recommended to serve coffee, it really isn't that hard to understand, especially considering they are a quick service restaurant, so you'd naturally assume the temp might still be somewhere between ideal brewing and ideal serving when it first gets handed to you. Hence the warning label."
Why are you bringing up the brewing temps at all if you're not trying to confuse them?
Part of the reason people put cream in their coffee is specifically because they don't want it that hot. Among other things, adding cream improves the flavor. Improving the flavor means not having to burn your tastebuds.
None of which are the subject of discussion.
It is, but just so that you don't mistake me for some kind of freedom-hater who wants everyone swaddled in cotton, I do have sound legal principles to back up my opinion.
As I mentioned before, McDonalds is not the average defendant, and it would be unjust to measure them by the same standard we apply to every other cafe or coffee-seller.
1) They sell coffee to a vast section of society. Joe's Diner in Bumfuck Alabama has a potential customer base in the thousands. McDonalds has a potential customer base in the billions. Because there are so many people buying their coffee every day, any risk to the consumer is magnified.
2) The have the resources and ability to easily minimise the risk. For example, it would cost them next-to-nothing to change business practices, include a larger warning label, etc.
3) They can absorb loss with greater capacity than the average defendant. They are a massive business. If they loose money on coffee because they have to reduce the temperature - so be it. They can raise the cost of other menu items by a fraction of a cent and probably still come out on top. Furthermore, they're a large, diversified business - meaning that a lot of their money isn't even tied up in the restaraunt business.
If it means that no-one is burned by their coffee, I think it's acceptable to have McDonalds serve it at a lower temperature. They can absorb the loss, they have a higher standard of care to uphold, and it's debatable how much profits they would lose in any case.
No, it makes your "exponentially more likely to burn" comment misleading. Almost identical is true.
Because in order to get from brewing temp to serving temp, you must pass all temps in between. So at a quick-serve facility, you might expect your coffee to be somewhere between ideal brewing and ideal serving when it's handed to you. It doesn't really matter, though, because even the industry standard ideal serving temperature causes 3rd degree burns in seconds. This seems to be the key point upon which all of you are so woefully ignorant.
That was a big circle of nonsense. The point is that many people want it hot and creamy. Which means it has to be even hotter than hot before cream is added.
It's cute that you think there is no significance whatsoever that other cases have specifically ruled that McDonald's is not negligent in their coffee-serving practices. But you are wrong.
Just to reiterate: the industry-accepted serving temperature for coffee, adopted by Starbucks, Wendy's, Dunkin' Donuts, and just about everywhere, causes 3rd degree burns in seconds. That is the more technical explanation of what most people deem "common sense." Coffee is hot; be careful.
Consumer demand shouldn't, and apparently does not, overrule safety considerations.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/974131.html In the McDonald's case, evidence was provided that the coffee was unusually hot for coffee.
My bad, popular demand shouldn't overrule safety considerations. If I go into a coffeehouse and ask for my coffee "extra hot," it's 100% up to me to be extra careful with it.
Every time I go to Starbuck's and get their drip coffee, it's lukewarm at best. :P
Thank you for that important operative.
A notable case in the U.K. a very very corporate friendly enviornment.
Which, get this... Happened in 2002.
You would notice that this is
A: After the case in question in the States
and
B: After MCD changed their policy by court order.
and the big one
C. Note that in that case, the judge deemed that the plantif was incorrect as for the serving temperature of the drink, and there was no evidence as to the exact serving temperature
D Ill just quote this next section
This is a false dichotomy. I dont know the Law in the U.K. but in the U.S. the law has to do with exceeding reasonable expectations of danger. The Judge in the U.K. says "well if MCD isnt supposed to serve coffee that can cause third degree burns, then they obviously arent supposed to serve coffee that can cause any type of scalding burn"
Which is ridiculous.
Except that wasnt the question numb nuts. The question was
"Is the number of people who get into accidents drunk driving compared to the number of people drunk driving effectivly zero?" I would wager that its pretty close, the number of people over the legal limit any night are staggeringly high, the number of traffic accidents pretty low.
Alcahol does INCREASE the chance of getting into an accident by quite a lot, but that does not mean that the chance still isnt "statistically zero".
Here is an example from a data set I had the ability to examine back in the day. Smoking causes cancer. About 1% of people who dont smoke in their lifetime will get lung cancer in their life, about 4% of people who smoke at least 10 pack/years will get lung cancer sometime in their life. Now, this means that smokers are 400% more likly to get cancer than non-smokers. However, the chance of you getting lung cancer if you are a smoker is still very small, and you have to smoke for a very long time to really increase that chance.
Such, you could be 10 times more likly to get into an accident when you are drunk, but if there is only a .00000000001% chance you will get into an accident when you are sober then for any paticular trip made you will most likly be fine.
As has been shown in the coffee case we are debating.
No, that is not true.
I didn't really go through the numbers in detail yet, but there was that document way back that I used to ballpark that 10 degree difference in liquid temperature halves that time.
Also, Yar's statistics... Neither the numbers 1 nor 24 million are relevant to determining whether the temperature of the liquid is hazardous.
You should look at Burns per Spills.
- ... Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
[/quote]Man. Did I call it or what.
It doesn't reinforce your point.
It doesn't reinforce your point.[/quote]
I wasn't actually trying to make one when I brought it up. I was dizzy.
That is indisputable fact. It is not a false dichotomy. It is a real dichotomy. There is no middle. If the coffee is hot enough to be aromatic and mask its cheap flavor and remain hot even after adding cream or driving to work, which is what customers want, then it must necessarily be hot enough to cause 3rd degree scalding in 2 seconds. The math and evidence on all this is clear. That was the exact ruling in the U.K. case as well as every other U.S. case - that there is no possible temperature at which coffee consumers at any restauarant will be happy but yet 3rd degree burns are impossible. That is what all other cited facts in this thread clearly illustrate, other than a single exception of a very poorly defended litigation that never should have gone as far as it did, and would have most likely been overturned on appeal.
One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns. All major sellers of coffee, as well as any expert you can find, recommend coffee be served above this temperature. The makers of automatic restaurant coffee machines all set holding temperatures much higher than this. You guys are being obstinate in the face of fucking irrefutable common sense. McD's fucked up an easy win worse than Kerry did.
[/quote]
First of all, you are quite dishonestly twisting the meaning of the source you're quoting. That article says brew at 190 - 205 and serve immediately. It then goes on to say that if you can't serve it immediately, keep it at 180 - 185. Because the flavor will degrade slower at that temp than at the higher one. You completely reversed the meaning of "a few minutes." They were not saying to make it 180, then take it off the heat and wait a few minutes, and then serve it. They were saying serve it immediately (190 - 205), or, non-ideal, serve it at 180 a few minutes later.
Secondly, just google "ideal serving temperature", coffee. You may find 155F as the bare minimum, but most say 160 - 200F, usually 178F. Then google "scalding temperature." 160F for 1 second is 3rd degree burns. I'd like to know what the imaginary "excluded middle" is. The overwhelming agreement among all industry leaders and authoritative sources is that the ideal serving temperature for coffee is well above that which can cause 3rd burns almost instantly.
In other words, coffee is hot.
No, it says it cant be maintained at that temperature up to twenty minutes.
It very clearly says brew at 195 to 205 and serve immediately!! Does being wrong hurt so bad that you can't even comprehend reading anymore?
The whole 180 - 185 thing is only in the very clearly stated non-ideal situation where it can't be served immediately. If it can't be served immediately, then keeping it at 195 - 205 will cause the flavor to degrade very quickly, so you should keep it at 180 - 185 so that it can last a few minutes. Anything cooler than that will cause it to lose its "optimal flavor notes." But even then it will degrade after 15 minutes (elsewhere on the site it says up to 60 minutes at that temperature if properly sealed).
Regardless, nowhere at all does it ever mention a temperature that is anything but well above what causes 3rd degree scalding almost instantly. Because properly served coffee will burn you.
Strange that.
Right. Because I'm sure that not one person in a 12 person jury knew anything about how they like their coffee.
Which were taken outside of the original context and/or cited incorrectly.
For instance, if the one page states that the ideal serving temperature is 155-175 F, you can't just insist that serving it 180-190 F will is within those guidelines.
The aromatics are based on boiling points of certain molecules. If the guidelines call for you to heat the stuff up to 175 degrees for optimal release and serve immeadiately, then guess what will happen if you heat the stuff up to 180-190 degrees for extended periods of time, in an effort to make it so that it only reaches 175 degrees after an extended period of time with the addition of new ingredients?
Oh, that's right, by then, everything will have already boiled away. Which is part of the reason why they specifically recomend that you don't do that. Geez, you don't think that there might be some sort of internal logic behind this, do you?
This is like a recipe that calls for you to cook a steak until the center reaches X degrees, and you thinking, "Well, I'm not going to eat that steak immeadiately, but clearly, the center should be about that hot by the time I do. So instead, I'm going to turn up the temperature up twice as high, cook it three times as long, and that way, if I leave it out for a half hour after I'm done cooking it, the center will be the right temperature by the time I'm done, and the steak will come out perfect!"
In a nutshell, no. No it won't.
Yes, and for how long?
"In a drip system, the contact time should be approximately 5 minutes. If you are making your coffee using a plunger pot, the contact time should be 2-4 minutes."
...For no more than 15 minutes, "because it will begin to develop a burned taste."
And you wonder why people accuse you of confusing brew temp with serving temp.
Look, under the conditions that McDonalds serves their coffee at, those "flavor notes" are long gone. That's assuming that they were ever available in the first place. Here's what else the page recomends:
"Purchase coffee as soon after it has been roasted as possible. Fresh roasted coffee is essential to a superb cup of coffee. And purchase your coffee in small amounts -- only as much as you can use in a given period of time. Ideally you should purchase your coffee fresh every 1-2 weeks"
If you purchase whole bean coffee, always grind your beans as close to the brew time as possible. A burr or mill grinder is preferable because all of the coffee is ground to a consistent size. A blade grinder is less preferable because some coffee will be ground more finely than the rest. If you normally grind your coffee at home with a blade grinder, try having it ground at the store with a burr grinder. You may be surprised at the difference!
Just out of curiousity, does McDonalds follow these guidelines as well?
You might as well argue that it's okay if McDonalds starts selling uncooked fish sandwiches, because hey, sushi chefs prepare raw fish all time, and clearly they know what they're doing!
That's like going to a french school of cooking for guidelines on how they should make their burgers.
Yar - McDonalds serves coffee to everyone. Cautious and stupid alike, disabled people, illiterate people, people who brew coffee at home and people who don't. I'm sorry that this offends you so much, but they are so big that they cannot be measured by ordinary standards. We demand more from them because it is in their power to do more. They are so big that they have to work much harder to avoid liability. That's the way it goes.
It is a natural function of our system of civil liability that the larger a company gets, the higher the risks it faces. That is why most peak companies are diversified to the point that they're no longer dependent on their core industry to survive. It's a limitation of the system. You might hate it, but it's perfectly just.
McDonalds cannot serve coffee in the traditional sense. By virtue of their size they must serve a coffee-like beverage, in the same way that they don't serve cooking in a natural sense of the word. If you don't like it - buy your coffee from a smaller retailer that has less liability overheads, have it as hot as you like, and if you spill it all over your pereneum, rest easily in the knowledge that any action you bring against them will probably fail.
This is the only remaining dignified argument at this point. But I still disagree. I do not think that being large means you necessarily must forgo any assumption of common sense regarding how something should served. Your argument seems to be" McDonald's is so big that even thigns that aren't their fault are still their fault, and they should be forced to sell inferior products because of this."
It was in one of the links that Jeffe provided, and which you referred to.
"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."
That comes from the Boyd Coffee Company.
If the coffee is 185 degrees by the time it reached the customer, exchanges hands, etc., then it was at least that temperature when it left the pot. And again, I doubt that they only left it at that temperature for 20 minutes at a time.
Take for instance espresso.
Espresso is brewed around 202f, then it is poured into steamed milk no hotter than 160f[because it burns any hotter than that] and mixed and served.
Drip Coffee is brewed at around 190-200, then it sits in a pot while the rest of the liquid brews. Then it is served after it has has dripped. It has had about 5 minutes of cooling time.
This is why you do not serve at those temperatures, you simply brew at those temperatures, and why there is a difference, a large difference between brew temperature and serving temperature.
Boundaries of tort liability aren't fixed. They aren't like constitutional rights. They're fluid - it's a function of how they work. Tort law is concerned with the obligations we all have towards one another. If companies A and B are different, it's a flow-on effect that their obligations to consumers are different.
It's a false dichotomy to think of safety as a binary on-off. There is not one magic temperature at which coffee becomes safe or not safe - that's what you've been arguing, and that's 100% correct. However, the law cannot function unless it creates artificial boundaries to decide what is and is not safe. Sometimes it's clearcut. Sometimes it's an issue of fine-tuning, as it is here.
In tort law, that boundary of what is and is not safe changes in accordance with the legal relationship between parties. The more power Company A has, the stricter the standard it is judged by, and suddenly what's "safe" for Company A is no longer the same as what's "safe" for B.
It's a natural function of obligations that the more powerful someone is, the more obligations they're under - because they pose more of a risk to those around it than a smaller individual would.
I'll be honest and say that I believe the law of torts is currently pretty ill-equipped to deal with entities as large as McDonalds. We've had a lot of liability legislation and payment caps in Australia that are a reaction to the same argument you're bringing up - but I'm of the opinion that they breed as much injustice as they avoid. Tort law is a law of balance - much more so than other laws - and any limitation on that balance limits the effectiveness of the law.
You're well within your rights to argue that the balance is off in this case, but I just want you to understand that I'm not naive in arguing that McDonalds should be liable, and that I'm not taking my position based on a gut reaction.
MCD knew it wasnt safe, that is why they lost.
No, what's safe does change. This is exactly the same discussion we had a few pages ago!
The larger the company, the higher the standard of care.
If I am a small trucking hire company, it's not reasonable for the courts to hold be me liable because I don't have the latest GPS software on my trucks. If I am the largest trucking hire company in the world, it may be.
You are confusing what is considered safe, and what you are liable for. You are liable for things you know, ought to know and can act upon. Liability changes, standard of care does not.
"When determining the standard of care, the probability of the risk materialising as well as the gravity if it were to occur are balanced against the social utiltity of the defendent's conduct and the practicability of the precautions necessary to reasonably guard against a foreseeable risk. Weighing (i) probability and (ii) gravity against (iii) practicability of precautions and (iv) social utility is often refered to as the 'calculus of negligence' (United States v Carroll Towing Co)... One of the most important factors or elements of the calculus involves the nature of practicable precautions the defendant ought to have taken or implemented..."
Yes, the standard of care applied to a defendent changes. This is a fundamental tenant of Tort law.
You're half right.
The standard of care is decided on an objective standard: ie, what would a reasonable man have done to avoid liability were he in the defendent's position? In that sense, it's fixed.
However, it's a bit more complicated than that, in that the characteristics of the defendant are taken into account when determining the standard of care, along with social utility considerations. For example, if the defendent is a doctor in a medical negligence case it's manifestly unjust to judge him by the standard of a reasonable man, because he's a goddamn doctor and has special training and obligations. As I said, tort law is a law of obligations, and different people have different standards of obligation to one another. The calculus of negligence is one of the ways of determining those obligations.
That is the way I understood it, just a misunderstanding then.
I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.
My point has always been that I (and the courts, apparently) don't give a shit what temperature is recommended for optimum flavor or brewing or whatever. If it's hot enough to cause permanent damage in a matter of seconds, it's too fucking hot.
Look, when you run a study saying that you know that boiling hot coffee will be spilled on a "statistically insignificant" number of people, resulting in severe burns, then fucking pay them the "statistically insignificant" hospital bills, or lower the temperature of your fucking coffee. If you don't, then you will find that judges try to make sure that "punitive damages" don't fall under the category of "statistically insignificant".