Again, they provide coffee for you at work. Which is going to be piping hot, because it's right there.
You seem to be addressing a niche audience who...
a) Do care about hot coffee.
b) Do not care about hot food.
c) Will not respond to the cold coffee problem by simply drinking the coffee in the car while it's still hot.
d) Will not respond to the cold coffee problem by relying on the office coffee machine.
If your main concern is "Coffee needs to be hot because people are going to work," then there are numerous ways to address the problem, including the options listed above, and improved insulation.
Now, if this was Starbucks, then at least you could argue, "The coffee at work is crappy compared to the coffee at Starbucks." But McDonalds isn't Starbucks. Starbucks makes the coffee fresh, and they add the cream for you so that you don't have to open the lid.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Yes, slightly thicker styrofoam would be so expensive.
If McDonalds is scared that people will leave for cheaper coffee, then again, there's a machine at the office that makes coffee for you. For free.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Yes, slightly thicker styrofoam would be so expensive.
If McDonalds is scared that people will leave for cheaper coffee, then again, there's a machine at the office that makes coffee for you. For free.
It could cost literally cents per cup.
So we must either look to the man, or the container. Now looking at the container we are left with one problem from which all other problems arise. How the F do we get the coffee out? If it is to hard to remove the coffee people will not like the container and seek easier containers. If the container is to easy to remove the coffee then we risk the lives both of the imbiber, as well as those around them. While an insulted sippy cup may prove the best option, nobody is willing to drink coffee from an insulted sippy cup.
Also, not sure if what is sarcasm and what isn't, but insulated sippy cups are exactly what coffee is generally served in. I know that's what Starbucks does, and people seem willing to drink from them.
Well, except the insulation, they just use cardboard and a sleeve. But sippy cups are no problem. And insulation is just a matter of expense.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Yes, slightly thicker styrofoam would be so expensive.
If McDonalds is scared that people will leave for cheaper coffee, then again, there's a machine at the office that makes coffee for you. For free.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
Besides the fact that it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, you still haven't explained why it's necessary to serve it that way.
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
And again, liquor restrictions relate to inebriation which does not apply to coffee in any way. A fully cognitive adult has no excuse to be aware a product is dangerous in a cafe, but suddenly be unaware because they are in their car.
I do grow somewhat tired of this line of argument. If you seriously consider selling coffee at a drive thru inherently negligent you should feel free to file a suit. I do not wonder what the result would be.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
Besides the fact that it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, you still haven't explained why it's necessary to serve it that way.
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective the only reason a seller needs is that they are of the opinion that a portion of their customers prefer it. They don't even need to be correct. Although really they need no reason at all. A seller needs no reason to sell a product in any way they choose, so long as the product is not defective.
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
If your entire argument through this entire thread is, "Well it's no law saying you can't do X," then there's no point to the thread, because no one is disputing that.
We're disputing the wisdom of their decision. You're disputing that isn't illegal.
Something can be perfectly legal and still be unwise.
And again, liquor restrictions relate to inebriation which does not apply to coffee in any way.
Inebriation is bad because it impairs you.
You know something else that impairs you? Third degree burns.
I probably wouldn't want someone who just had her crotch melted off to be driving on the road.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
Besides the fact that it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, you still haven't explained why it's necessary to serve it that way.
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective the only reason a seller needs is that they are of the opinion that a portion of their customers prefer it. They don't even need to be correct. Although really they need no reason at all. A seller needs no reason to sell a product in any way they choose, so long as the product is not defective.
So your argument is that the only way in which a company can be negligent is through a defective product?
In the case of McDonalds it is so that when it reaches its destination at people's workplaces it will still be of an apropriate temperature to drink.
Why not just provide better insulated cups rather than risk the safety of customers?
The accident in the Liebeck case was not caused by a failure of the container.
You missed the point of his question. If drinkable temperature is so critical, why not serve it at a lower, but safer temperature, and provide better insulated cups so that it maintains that temperature until they're ready to drink?
Hint:
It'll hurt McDonald's bottom line, and protecting that it more important than all the skin on all the customers in the world.
Ah. Your comment about the bottom line does a great job of showing how evil McDonalds is! Except the reality is that a prohibitively expensive cup would make for a prohibitively expensive cup of coffee, that would simply drive customers to another outlet. Then we could be discussing Burger Kings evil methods instead I suppose.
Beyond that, the point is moot anyway, since a 180 degree cup of coffee is not defective, and McDonalds does not have to try not to serve it.
No, it would only drive customers away because there are CEOs that cannot fathom making 195% profit on every cup of coffee sold instead of 200%, and thus will jack the price up.
Mcdermott: I'm rather surprised you didn't call him out on the "Well it's not necessary at all!" being a weasaly way to avoid answering your question, thus bringing up the question why is the only option "Too fucking hot" or "Not at all"? Is there no happy medium between scalding my tongue and not drinking coffee at all whatsoever?
And again, adding cream at McDonalds would solve 90% of the risk right there. Which apparently they do now.
It's almost as if the suit, particularly their loss in the suit, forced them to recognize a dangerous business practice and address it.
It's funny how Mental keeps trying to argue that it would be impossible for McDonalds to find ways to reduce the risk without alienating their customers, when they have already done this.
Also, not sure if what is sarcasm and what isn't, but insulated sippy cups are exactly what coffee is generally served in. I know that's what Starbucks does, and people seem willing to drink from them.
Well, except the insulation, they just use cardboard and a sleeve. But sippy cups are no problem. And insulation is just a matter of expense.
Unfortunately the cup used was insulted, the problem came about IIRC when the end user removed the lid to add cream/sugar and inadvertently squeezed the cup causing the liquid to spill. This to me indicates that something must be done either to prevent the lid from being removed, or to undermine peoples ability to displace the liquid through squeezing. Now if we make the lid a permanent fixture then people will be unable to bastardize their coffee with such perversions as, dare I say it, cream or sugar. While coffee will still be attainable we can expect some riots.
Instead we could just make the cup sturdier. Obviously cardboard and Styrofoam are insufficient protective materials. While they can insulate the heat, as well as contain the coffee they are unable to prevent spillage due to motion, or pressure. While we could use steel, it is cost prohibitive. We could potentially force each individual to supply their own coffee containment unit personalized, CUP, and through a long snaking hose we could feed out to the car dispense a prepurchased amount of coffee. Users could add their cream and sugar before dispensing the coffee to prevent injury, and since they are using a CUP they are intimately familiar with their is less risk of them burning themselves.
Unfortunately the cup used was insulted, the problem came about IIRC when the end user removed the lid to add cream/sugar and inadvertently squeezed the cup causing the liquid to spill.
Better insulation means that you can serve the cup at a lower temperature and it will still maintain it's heat. The coup could still spill, but at a lower temperature, resulting in less damage.
This to me indicates that something must be done either to prevent the lid from being removed
You mean like... having the cashier add cream for you? Which McDonalds now apparently does?
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
It's unnecessarily dangerous. That's what defective is.
It is not abnormally dangerous. A blender with a motor three times as strong as anything else on the market would be much more dangerous, but it would not be abnormally dangerous, or by it's nature defective.
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
If your entire argument through this entire thread is, "Well it's no law saying you can't do X," then there's no point to the thread, because no one is disputing that.
We're disputing the wisdom of their decision. You're disputing that isn't illegal.
Something can be perfectly legal and still be unwise.
And again, liquor restrictions relate to inebriation which does not apply to coffee in any way.
Inebriation is bad because it impairs you.
You know something else that impairs you? Third degree burns.
I probably wouldn't want someone who just had her crotch melted off to be driving on the road.
Yes third degree burns do impair you. Apropos of nothing.
Because the point was the being in a car impairs a customers ability to foresee that scalding hot liquid might burn them in no way whatsoever.
And again, adding cream at McDonalds would solve 90% of the risk right there. Which apparently they do now.
It's almost as if the suit, particularly their loss in the suit, forced them to recognize a dangerous business practice and address it.
It's funny how Mental keeps trying to argue that it would be impossible for McDonalds to find ways to reduce the risk without alienating their customers, when they have already done this.
You have completely misrepresented my argument. I argue that as 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need not justify serving 185 degree coffee.
[
Better insulation means that you can serve the cup at a lower temperature and it will still maintain it's heat. The coup could still spill, but at a lower temperature, resulting in less damage.
You mean like... having the cashier add cream for you? Which McDonalds now apparently does?
Unfortunately lower temperature would effect the taste as apparently a higher temperature is better. However I find that McDonalds can no longer trust its patrons to add their own cream and sugar, and now must resort to allowing trained professionals to handle the dangerous substances to be an excellent step in the right direction. Now our only danger lies in if they do not add enough cream or sugar and the end user has to attempt to a Manual Coffee Basic User Reflavor maNuver, or McBurn.
Unfortunately the cup used was insulted, the problem came about IIRC when the end user removed the lid to add cream/sugar and inadvertently squeezed the cup causing the liquid to spill.
Better insulation means that you can serve the cup at a lower temperature and it will still maintain it's heat. The coup could still spill, but at a lower temperature, resulting in less damage.
However as second degree burns are as actionable as third degree burns, this would not change the situation materially.
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
It's unnecessarily dangerous. That's what defective is.
It is not abnormally dangerous. A blender with a motor three times as strong as anything else on the market would be much more dangerous, but it would not be abnormally dangerous, or by it's nature defective.
So wait.
If something is not normal, and this makes it more dangerous, to the point where the DANGER is not NORMAL...it's not abnormally dangerous?
This is some serious mental gymnastics. Especially considering the second definition of abnormal is "excessively large".
So if it's excessively more dangerous (like...say...the motor is 3 times as strong), it would be abnormally dangerous.
Really? Is getting punched in the face as actionable as getting stabbed in the stomach?
edit: separating this thread from tort reform has certainly done an admirable job of making the whole thing look really, really retarded.
It is in fact. You are equally liable for either action, only the level of renumeration being different. In other words you are equally at fault for either action, and only the amount of money you sue for would be different.
And again, adding cream at McDonalds would solve 90% of the risk right there. Which apparently they do now.
It's almost as if the suit, particularly their loss in the suit, forced them to recognize a dangerous business practice and address it.
It's funny how Mental keeps trying to argue that it would be impossible for McDonalds to find ways to reduce the risk without alienating their customers, when they have already done this.
You have completely misrepresented my argument. I argue that as 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need not justify serving 185 degree coffee.
If it's not defective, then why did McDonalds change their practices to add the cream for you before the coffee goes out?
Huh, wacky, I totally would be more prone to suing someone who stabs me in the stomach than someone who punches me in the face. But I guess that's separate from whether one or the other is illegal, so fair enough.
Though I have to say, in 'the real world' I imagine police are more likely to care about someone who punches you in the face till your skin sloughs off and you need skin grafts than someone who punches you in the face once, even if both are 'equally actionable' .
Steak tastes better when it's been cooked on a hot grill.
It does not taste better when it's been sitting on a hot grill all day and has shriveled down to nothing.
Some might argue that the only thing that makes McDonald's coffee palatable is the heat, moreover were they to lower the heat customers would likely be unhappy. Were they to lower the heat to safe levels customers would definitely be unhappy.
Attempting to make the coffee safer unfortunately will not work. People like their scalding hot murder sludge. Our efforts must either be focused on the people, or the container. The massive social engineering necessary to wither get people to like cold coffee, or lower the temperature of hundreds of restaurants is far to massive of a social undertaking.
It really does not matter. As I said, since 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need have no reason at all to serve 185 degree coffee.
It's unnecessarily dangerous. That's what defective is.
It is not abnormally dangerous. A blender with a motor three times as strong as anything else on the market would be much more dangerous, but it would not be abnormally dangerous, or by it's nature defective.
So wait.
If something is not normal, and this makes it more dangerous, to the point where the DANGER is not NORMAL...it's not abnormally dangerous?
This is some serious mental gymnastics. Especially considering the second definition of abnormal is "excessively large".
So if it's excessively more dangerous (like...say...the motor is 3 times as strong), it would be abnormally dangerous.
Just sayin'.
First, 185 degrees is not abnormally hot for coffee.
Second by abnormal I am referring to the type of danger presented. A stronger blender offers the same type of danger as any other. The danger is still normal to a blender. The fact that the injury danger is of greater potential magnitude does not make the product defective. Just like an extra fast motorcycle would not be defective, as speed is an inherent danger of motorcycles, while the motorcycle with wobbly steering may be, as an inability to control a motorcycle is not an expected danger of the product.
That's like saying that the only thing that makes your girlfriend palatable is the paper bag over her head.
Well yes actually, on both counts. Maybe it is just me but that thin layer of cardboard that protects me from the searing heat either between my hands, or on my tongue just adds that little bit extra. God forbid someone remove my protective cardboard, I could be killed!
Oh wait we are talking about coffee. Tell ya what, what temperature do you feel McDonald's coffee should be stored out before being dispensed to people trapped in tiny metal boxes?
First, 185 degrees is not abnormally hot for fresh coffee.
Fixed.
McDonalds coffee is another matter.
It's funny how every link you provided on the subject says that coffee should be hot when it's served freshed, and then warns against using electric burners for extended periods of time.
Guacamole is good for you because due to its fat content. But if I discover that the fat in my guacamole is made mainly from partially hydrogenated oils and only 2% from avocado, I would probably complain.
Avocado should be the main ingredient in guacamole, of course. So what are companies like Kraft putting in their foods instead of avocado? Partially hydrogenated oils, of course, because it's a lot cheaper than avocados. The dip from Kraft has less than 2% avocado which means it's really not guacamole. It's more like "dumpster dip" because the primary ingredients are garbage for your diet.
This recipe may not be a big surprise given that avocado is a rather expensive ingredient to use. It's much cheaper to use hydrogenated oils and artificial colors such as yellow #5 and blue #1 to give it the appearance and color of avocado. Gullible American consumers actually buy the product and consume it in large enough quantities to keep it on the shelf, thereby proving that food companies can put practically anything they want in a plastic tub and most people will not just buy it, but actually put it in their mouths! (Didn't their parents ever teach them not to put garbage in their mouth?)
Hey, it's green and it's fatty, so it's just as good.
First, 185 degrees is not abnormally hot for fresh coffee.
Fixed.
McDonalds coffee is another matter.
It's funny how every link you provided on the subject says that coffee should be hot when it's served freshed, and then warns against using electric burners for extended periods of time.
Guacamole is good for you because due to its fat content. But if I discover that the fat in my guacamole is made mainly from partially hydrogenated oils and only 2% from avocado, I would probably complain.
Avocado should be the main ingredient in guacamole, of course. So what are companies like Kraft putting in their foods instead of avocado? Partially hydrogenated oils, of course, because it's a lot cheaper than avocados. The dip from Kraft has less than 2% avocado which means it's really not guacamole. It's more like "dumpster dip" because the primary ingredients are garbage for your diet.
This recipe may not be a big surprise given that avocado is a rather expensive ingredient to use. It's much cheaper to use hydrogenated oils and artificial colors such as yellow #5 and blue #1 to give it the appearance and color of avocado. Gullible American consumers actually buy the product and consume it in large enough quantities to keep it on the shelf, thereby proving that food companies can put practically anything they want in a plastic tub and most people will not just buy it, but actually put it in their mouths! (Didn't their parents ever teach them not to put garbage in their mouth?)
Hey, it's green and it's fatty, so it's just as good.
Yet again, this is not relevant unless the consumer in question knew that the coffee was not fresh and factored that into their decision to handle it as she did.
If the customer has a reasonable expectation of receiving 185 degree coffee they must behave accordingly regardless of the reason this particular cup of coffee is this particular temperature.
If I purchase roach poison, some of which is toxic to dogs and some is not, i do not verify which kind it is, I seed my apartment with it, my dog eats it and dies, the company is not liable. If I buy a product which may be somewhat dangerous, or may be extremely dangerous, I do not find out which, I mishandle the product and am severely injured, I have no case to say I expected to only to get somewhat injured. It is still not the sellers fault.
Only if you lack the foresight to avoid tampering with the lid while the cup is resting unstably.
Because Stella is supposed to be Houdini and figure out a way to add cream without opening the lid first.
The point is, being in a car impairs your ability to handle coffee, thereby creating greater risks.
No, she is xpected to have the reasonable foresight to k is that spilling bot coffee on her lap would injure her, potentially severely, and that removing a tightly fitted lid while the container is unstable might cause the container to spill.
Posts
You seem to be addressing a niche audience who...
a) Do care about hot coffee.
b) Do not care about hot food.
c) Will not respond to the cold coffee problem by simply drinking the coffee in the car while it's still hot.
d) Will not respond to the cold coffee problem by relying on the office coffee machine.
If your main concern is "Coffee needs to be hot because people are going to work," then there are numerous ways to address the problem, including the options listed above, and improved insulation.
Now, if this was Starbucks, then at least you could argue, "The coffee at work is crappy compared to the coffee at Starbucks." But McDonalds isn't Starbucks. Starbucks makes the coffee fresh, and they add the cream for you so that you don't have to open the lid.
Yes, slightly thicker styrofoam would be so expensive.
If McDonalds is scared that people will leave for cheaper coffee, then again, there's a machine at the office that makes coffee for you. For free.
It could cost literally cents per cup.
Also, not sure if what is sarcasm and what isn't, but insulated sippy cups are exactly what coffee is generally served in. I know that's what Starbucks does, and people seem willing to drink from them.
Well, except the insulation, they just use cardboard and a sleeve. But sippy cups are no problem. And insulation is just a matter of expense.
We're expected to pay into our coffee fund.
But it's just a quarter a cup.
Besides the fact that it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, you still haven't explained why it's necessary to serve it that way.
And again, liquor restrictions relate to inebriation which does not apply to coffee in any way. A fully cognitive adult has no excuse to be aware a product is dangerous in a cafe, but suddenly be unaware because they are in their car.
I do grow somewhat tired of this line of argument. If you seriously consider selling coffee at a drive thru inherently negligent you should feel free to file a suit. I do not wonder what the result would be.
--LeVar Burton
It's almost as if the suit, particularly their loss in the suit, forced them to recognize a dangerous business practice and address it.
It's unnecessarily dangerous. That's what defective is.
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective the only reason a seller needs is that they are of the opinion that a portion of their customers prefer it. They don't even need to be correct. Although really they need no reason at all. A seller needs no reason to sell a product in any way they choose, so long as the product is not defective.
--LeVar Burton
If your entire argument through this entire thread is, "Well it's no law saying you can't do X," then there's no point to the thread, because no one is disputing that.
We're disputing the wisdom of their decision. You're disputing that isn't illegal.
Something can be perfectly legal and still be unwise.
Inebriation is bad because it impairs you.
You know something else that impairs you? Third degree burns.
I probably wouldn't want someone who just had her crotch melted off to be driving on the road.
So your argument is that the only way in which a company can be negligent is through a defective product?
I'd disagree.
No, it would only drive customers away because there are CEOs that cannot fathom making 195% profit on every cup of coffee sold instead of 200%, and thus will jack the price up.
Mcdermott: I'm rather surprised you didn't call him out on the "Well it's not necessary at all!" being a weasaly way to avoid answering your question, thus bringing up the question why is the only option "Too fucking hot" or "Not at all"? Is there no happy medium between scalding my tongue and not drinking coffee at all whatsoever?
It's funny how Mental keeps trying to argue that it would be impossible for McDonalds to find ways to reduce the risk without alienating their customers, when they have already done this.
Unfortunately the cup used was insulted, the problem came about IIRC when the end user removed the lid to add cream/sugar and inadvertently squeezed the cup causing the liquid to spill. This to me indicates that something must be done either to prevent the lid from being removed, or to undermine peoples ability to displace the liquid through squeezing. Now if we make the lid a permanent fixture then people will be unable to bastardize their coffee with such perversions as, dare I say it, cream or sugar. While coffee will still be attainable we can expect some riots.
Instead we could just make the cup sturdier. Obviously cardboard and Styrofoam are insufficient protective materials. While they can insulate the heat, as well as contain the coffee they are unable to prevent spillage due to motion, or pressure. While we could use steel, it is cost prohibitive. We could potentially force each individual to supply their own coffee containment unit personalized, CUP, and through a long snaking hose we could feed out to the car dispense a prepurchased amount of coffee. Users could add their cream and sugar before dispensing the coffee to prevent injury, and since they are using a CUP they are intimately familiar with their is less risk of them burning themselves.
Better insulation means that you can serve the cup at a lower temperature and it will still maintain it's heat. The coup could still spill, but at a lower temperature, resulting in less damage.
You mean like... having the cashier add cream for you? Which McDonalds now apparently does?
It is not abnormally dangerous. A blender with a motor three times as strong as anything else on the market would be much more dangerous, but it would not be abnormally dangerous, or by it's nature defective.
--LeVar Burton
Yes third degree burns do impair you. Apropos of nothing.
Because the point was the being in a car impairs a customers ability to foresee that scalding hot liquid might burn them in no way whatsoever.
--LeVar Burton
You have completely misrepresented my argument. I argue that as 185 degree coffee is not defective, they need not justify serving 185 degree coffee.
--LeVar Burton
Unfortunately lower temperature would effect the taste as apparently a higher temperature is better. However I find that McDonalds can no longer trust its patrons to add their own cream and sugar, and now must resort to allowing trained professionals to handle the dangerous substances to be an excellent step in the right direction. Now our only danger lies in if they do not add enough cream or sugar and the end user has to attempt to a Manual Coffee Basic User Reflavor maNuver, or McBurn.
However as second degree burns are as actionable as third degree burns, this would not change the situation materially.
--LeVar Burton
edit: separating this thread from tort reform has certainly done an admirable job of making the whole thing look really, really retarded.
So wait.
If something is not normal, and this makes it more dangerous, to the point where the DANGER is not NORMAL...it's not abnormally dangerous?
This is some serious mental gymnastics. Especially considering the second definition of abnormal is "excessively large".
So if it's excessively more dangerous (like...say...the motor is 3 times as strong), it would be abnormally dangerous.
Just sayin'.
And selling a person alcohol somehow impairs the customer's ability to foresee that the alcohol will make them drunk?
Because I'm pretty sure that the entire point of alcohol is to get drunk, where as the point of coffee is not to get burnt.
It is in fact. You are equally liable for either action, only the level of renumeration being different. In other words you are equally at fault for either action, and only the amount of money you sue for would be different.
--LeVar Burton
If it's not defective, then why did McDonalds change their practices to add the cream for you before the coffee goes out?
...when freshly served.
Which McDonalds is not.
Steak tastes better when it's been cooked on a hot grill.
It does not taste better when it's been sitting on a hot grill all day and has shriveled down to nothing.
No, it impairs their ability to properly foresee the danger of mishandling guns or knives. As per your example.
--LeVar Burton
Though I have to say, in 'the real world' I imagine police are more likely to care about someone who punches you in the face till your skin sloughs off and you need skin grafts than someone who punches you in the face once, even if both are 'equally actionable'
Some might argue that the only thing that makes McDonald's coffee palatable is the heat, moreover were they to lower the heat customers would likely be unhappy. Were they to lower the heat to safe levels customers would definitely be unhappy.
Attempting to make the coffee safer unfortunately will not work. People like their scalding hot murder sludge. Our efforts must either be focused on the people, or the container. The massive social engineering necessary to wither get people to like cold coffee, or lower the temperature of hundreds of restaurants is far to massive of a social undertaking.
Being trapped in a car impairs my ability to handle coffee without spilling it.
First, 185 degrees is not abnormally hot for coffee.
Second by abnormal I am referring to the type of danger presented. A stronger blender offers the same type of danger as any other. The danger is still normal to a blender. The fact that the injury danger is of greater potential magnitude does not make the product defective. Just like an extra fast motorcycle would not be defective, as speed is an inherent danger of motorcycles, while the motorcycle with wobbly steering may be, as an inability to control a motorcycle is not an expected danger of the product.
--LeVar Burton
How? By burning your taste buds?
That's like saying that the only thing that makes your girlfriend palatable is the paper bag over her head.
Well yes actually, on both counts. Maybe it is just me but that thin layer of cardboard that protects me from the searing heat either between my hands, or on my tongue just adds that little bit extra. God forbid someone remove my protective cardboard, I could be killed!
Oh wait we are talking about coffee. Tell ya what, what temperature do you feel McDonald's coffee should be stored out before being dispensed to people trapped in tiny metal boxes?
Fixed.
McDonalds coffee is another matter.
It's funny how every link you provided on the subject says that coffee should be hot when it's served freshed, and then warns against using electric burners for extended periods of time.
Guacamole is good for you because due to its fat content. But if I discover that the fat in my guacamole is made mainly from partially hydrogenated oils and only 2% from avocado, I would probably complain.
http://www.naturalnews.com/002702.html
Avocado should be the main ingredient in guacamole, of course. So what are companies like Kraft putting in their foods instead of avocado? Partially hydrogenated oils, of course, because it's a lot cheaper than avocados. The dip from Kraft has less than 2% avocado which means it's really not guacamole. It's more like "dumpster dip" because the primary ingredients are garbage for your diet.
This recipe may not be a big surprise given that avocado is a rather expensive ingredient to use. It's much cheaper to use hydrogenated oils and artificial colors such as yellow #5 and blue #1 to give it the appearance and color of avocado. Gullible American consumers actually buy the product and consume it in large enough quantities to keep it on the shelf, thereby proving that food companies can put practically anything they want in a plastic tub and most people will not just buy it, but actually put it in their mouths! (Didn't their parents ever teach them not to put garbage in their mouth?)
Hey, it's green and it's fatty, so it's just as good.
Only if you lack the foresight to avoid tampering with the lid while the cup is resting unstably.
--LeVar Burton
Because Stella is supposed to be Houdini and figure out a way to add cream without opening the lid first.
The point is, being in a car impairs your ability to handle coffee, thereby creating greater risks.
Yet again, this is not relevant unless the consumer in question knew that the coffee was not fresh and factored that into their decision to handle it as she did.
If the customer has a reasonable expectation of receiving 185 degree coffee they must behave accordingly regardless of the reason this particular cup of coffee is this particular temperature.
If I purchase roach poison, some of which is toxic to dogs and some is not, i do not verify which kind it is, I seed my apartment with it, my dog eats it and dies, the company is not liable. If I buy a product which may be somewhat dangerous, or may be extremely dangerous, I do not find out which, I mishandle the product and am severely injured, I have no case to say I expected to only to get somewhat injured. It is still not the sellers fault.
--LeVar Burton
No, she is xpected to have the reasonable foresight to k is that spilling bot coffee on her lap would injure her, potentially severely, and that removing a tightly fitted lid while the container is unstable might cause the container to spill.
--LeVar Burton