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.
So you expected Stella to know that the coffee would melt her skin from her body within seconds of contact (as opposed to the much more minor burns that normal people in similar situations would have experienced in their lifetimes), but you don't expect her to realize that McDonalds coffee isn't freshly brewed.
Huh?
And once again, you're missing the point.
If someone complains that guacamole shouldn't be made with food coloring and hydrogenated oils, you could try replying with, "But guacamole is supposed to be green and fatty!" But then you would be missing the point. If someone says "Guacamole should be a nice green color," that could be because the green color is a sign that it is fresh and natural. If you are using food coloring on hydrogenated oils, then your product is no longer fresh and natural. So yes, guacamole is supposed to be green and fatty. But serving up a product like Kraft is missing the point.
Similarly, we're arguing that coffee shouldn't be maintained on high temperatures for long periods of time. That isn't just us saying this, the links that you yourself provided says the same thing.
Saying "Well, coffee is supposed to be hot" as a defense is like saying, "Well, guacamole is supposed to be green."
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective
Yes it is. It can not be drunk and causes severe burns. It does not have to. It is faulty. That is what is called defective.
No, it is not. A product which presents a greater danger but of the same type is not defective, even if there is not any particular reason. That triple strength blender is completely unnecessarily strong, but not defective. Neither is the super fast motorcycle, the super sharp knife, the crazy hot stovetop etc.
Similarly, we're arguing that coffee shouldn't be maintained on high temperatures for long periods of time. That isn't just us saying this, the links that you yourself provided says the same thing.
What temperature are you arguing coffee should be maintained at to be safe enough to not cause burns without making it undesirable to customers?
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.
Oh, I wasn't aware of the fact that Stella spilled coffee on herself on purpose. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, she probably shouldn't have done that, knowing that it would result in burns.
It's funny.
So if a woman bought boiling hot coffee at a drive thru where the coffee didn't need to be boiling hot, the seller wouldn't be responsible for that, because the woman should have accounted the risk of being severely burnt as a result of unnecessary hotness.
By that same logic, why is it wrong for McDonalds to sell customers open containers of liquor at the drive through? Shouldn't customers be just a lot more aware of the risk of getting drunk?
After all, the purpose of alcohol is to get drunk. The purpose of coffee is not to get burnt.
So using your logic, the dangers of alcohol should be a lot more foreseeable on behalf of the consumer.
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective
Yes it is. It can not be drunk and causes severe burns. It does not have to. It is faulty. That is what is called defective.
No, it is not. A product which presents a greater danger but of the same type is not defective, even if there is not any particular reason. That triple strength blender is completely unnecessarily strong, but not defective. Neither is the super fast motorcycle, the super sharp knife, the crazy hot stovetop etc.
Triple strength blender: Break up tough material
Super fast motorcycle: Racing
Super sharp knife: Cutting through bone
Not really sure what an especially hot stove top would even consist of.
You're drawing up analogies that don't work. The coffee isn't enhanced in any way whatsoever by being 185 degrees. None. It serves no purpose but to save a company money by endangering their customers rather than just using a safer method. Which if they're going to do, they're going to have to accept that they're leaving themselves open to lawsuits for needless endangerment.
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.
It's completely relevant. It couldn't be more relevant.
It's relevant because it addresses McDonald's actions, not Stella's. 185 degrees is only an appropriate temperature when coffee is served fresh.
Did you get that bit right there? I made it italicized and bold for you. Here, I'll repeat the relevant part for you:
185 degree temperature coffee is only appropriate when the coffee is served fresh.
Can you guess how McDonald's serves their coffee? I'll give you a hint: not fresh.
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.
Oh, I wasn't aware of the fact that Stella spilled coffee on herself on purpose. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, she probably shouldn't have done that, knowing that it would result in burns.
It's funny.
So if a woman bought boiling hot coffee at a drive thru where the coffee didn't need to be boiling hot, the seller wouldn't be responsible for that, because the woman should have accounted the risk of being severely burnt as a result of unnecessary hotness.
By that same logic, why is it wrong for McDonalds to sell customers open containers of liquor at the drive through? Shouldn't customers be just a lot more aware of the risk of getting drunk?
After all, the purpose of alcohol is to get drunk. The purpose of coffee is not to get burnt.
So using your logic, the dangers of alcohol should be a lot more foreseeable on behalf of the consumer.
Which of these two things has killed hundreds of thousands of people:
a. drunk driving
b. McDonald's coffee burns
You get a hint: It's not b. In light of the fact that alcohol abuse has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that coffee has seriously injured a small handful, which deserves greater greater legal scrutiny?
This is like comparing a candle to the sun. The situations are different by so many hundreds of times of risk as to not be comparable.
No.
Good coffee is served FRESH at 185 degrees, meaning when it is poured out of the coffee pot, into the cup, and then has cream and sugar added.
Which causes a lot of loss of heat until it is merely hot instead of scalding.
It's science!
The Muffin Man on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
Coffee at that temperature is pretty much ruined. There is no need for coffee to ever be at that temperature.
Which of these two things has killed hundreds of thousands of people:
a. drunk driving
b. McDonald's coffee burns
You get a hint: It's not b. In light of the fact that alcohol abuse has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that coffee has seriously injured a small handful, which deserves greater greater legal scrutiny?
We're not limited to focusing only on drunk driving though. Our court system is in fact capable of hearing cases where a business is showing negligence.
Like, say, when they'd rather serve a scalding liquid in a poorly insulated cup rather than a hot liquid in a well insulated one to cut costs.
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.
Oh, I wasn't aware of the fact that Stella spilled coffee on herself on purpose. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, she probably shouldn't have done that, knowing that it would result in burns.
It's funny.
So if a woman bought boiling hot coffee at a drive thru where the coffee didn't need to be boiling hot, the seller wouldn't be responsible for that, because the woman should have accounted the risk of being severely burnt as a result of unnecessary hotness.
By that same logic, why is it wrong for McDonalds to sell customers open containers of liquor at the drive through? Shouldn't customers be just a lot more aware of the risk of getting drunk?
After all, the purpose of alcohol is to get drunk. The purpose of coffee is not to get burnt.
So using your logic, the dangers of alcohol should be a lot more foreseeable on behalf of the consumer.
Which of these two things has killed hundreds of thousands of people:
a. drunk driving
b. McDonald's coffee burns
You get a hint: It's not b. In light of the fact that alcohol abuse has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that coffee has seriously injured a small handful, which deserves greater greater legal scrutiny?
Outside of this thread, I'm pretty damn sure alcohol abuse (in its many forms, including drunk driving) has received orders of magnitude more legal scrutiny. How many criminal proceedings? How many claims for injury stemming from alcohol (both from traffic accidents, and other negligent acts relating to both the consumption and service of alcohol)?
EDIT: This entire thread, or at least 99% of it, is talking about one legal case, in the history of our court system, ever. With a few references to a handful of other cases thrown in.
EDIT: Which is to say that the general legal scrutiny is on par with the harm involved. And the damages were proportional to the revenues of the party found to be at fault (given that they were punitive). If anything, the only excessive legal scrutiny involved is from those that oppose the outcome of this one fucking case, and seek to overhaul our entire system because of it.
This is like comparing a candle to the sun. The situations are different by so many hundreds of times of risk as to not be comparable.
In order to refute an analogy, you have to prove that they are different in terms of the property being compared. It's not enough to show that the two things being compared are different. The fact that the two things are different is what makes it an analogy, rather than an axiom.
So good coffee is allowed to be served dangeroulsy hot, while bad coffee is not? Either 185 is a dangerous temperature for a drink or it is not.
So Kobe beef Carpaccio at a 5-Star Italian restaurant is allowed to contain raw beef, while hamburger meat at McDonalds is not? Either raw beef is dangerous to eat, or it is not.
So bars are allowed to serve Jello shots containing alcohol, while the McDonalds drive thru is not? Either Jello shots are dangerous, or it is not.
No.
Good coffee is served FRESH at 185 degrees, meaning when it is poured out of the coffee pot, into the cup, and then has cream and sugar added.
Which causes a lot of loss of heat until it is merely hot instead of scalding.
It's science!
What about black coffee? Is black coffee served at a lower temperture because there's no cream or sugar being added?
Edit: and Carpaccio can be served rare or raw because it hasn't been ground up, which causes all those nasty microbes and bacteria to be spread among your meat.
Edit: and Carpaccio can be served rare or raw because it hasn't been ground up, which causes all those nasty microbes and bacteria to be spread among your meat.
185 degrees is NOT an appropriate serving temperature for fresh coffee. It is an appropriate brewing temperature. I.E. that is how hot your water ought to be.
But the time your coffee has fully brewed the temperature will have fallen significantly below 185. The optimal serving temperature for coffee is around 160 and ideal drinking temperature [I.E. you rate what temperature people prefer] is between 140 and 160. This is for black coffee. Coffee with cream will be cooler [due to the cream]
Serving 185 degree coffee out of a drive through window is defective. Its so defective that McDonalds knew that it was defective because they had been sued before as a result and decided that the court costs to defend were lower than the increased profits from selling coffee at lower temperatures. . And because they knew it was defective they lost pretty hard.
Edit: and Carpaccio can be served rare or raw because it hasn't been ground up, which causes all those nasty microbes and bacteria to be spread among your meat.
sidenote: to my recollection, it was burned down shortly after opening. i think they decided it was arson. last i heard the owner was serving coffee in the parking lot while waiting for the investigation to go through.
So if the problem is that coffee doesn't need to be served at 185 degrees and the vendor becomes liable for that lack of need, wouldn't the same reasoning apply to any damages from any product?
Let's say we have a hypothetical cold beverage, that contains a colour additive that is not neccesary for the products primary function. I spray this all over my car and myself. Is the vendor then liable for the damages - in this example purely non-physical - caused specifically by the "needless" additive?
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
Let's say we have a hypothetical cold beverage, that contains a colour additive that is not neccesary for the products primary function. I spray this all over my car and myself. Is the vendor then liable for the damages - in this example purely non-physical - caused specifically by the "needless" additive?
I'm pretty sure that any beverage vendor that produces a product that doesn't wash off with soap and water would be sued regardless.
If a beverage can cause permanent damage a car body, then that's not a product that I would want to put in my mouth.
Just out of curiosity, what does non-physical damage to a car body even entail? Are you suing because the car is sad?
Jokerman, several people have stated that it's wrong for a product to be allowed in one circumstance but not allowed in another circumstance.
The refutation is that context matters. For instance, raw beef is a product that is allowed in some circumstances, but not others.
You then reply by explaining that raw beef is allowed in some circumstances, but not others.
Which was the entire point being made in the refutation.
The point has nothing to do with whether a product is allowed in one circumstance and so must be allowed in all circumstances. The point is that a product is not defective because of the venue of sale.
Carpaccio and raw hamburger are two different products, made two different ways, which is the source of one being safe and the other dangerous. The two cups of coffee are dangerous for the same reason, capable of causing the same damage. And we expect consumers to be aware of that danger regardless of venue of sale.
The jello shot example is still somewhat nonsensical as it isn't something that is not done because it would make a seller negligent, it isn't done because open container laws make it criminal. However drive thru liquor is legal in some states. Yet drive thru liquor stores in those states have not found themselves sued out of business by victims of DUI tickets and accidents. Because a customer that is expected to assume the risk and responsibility of purchasing and drinking alcohol from inside a store is equally expected to assume that risk and responsibility when they purchase alcohol while driving their car. In neither situation is the alcohol defective, and in neither situation is the seller liable.
sidenote: to my recollection, it was burned down shortly after opening. i think they decided it was arson. last i heard the owner was serving coffee in the parking lot while waiting for the investigation to go through.
That was actually just the first link I found on the subject, but I heard about topless coffeeshops while my fiance and I were watching Chelsea Lately, as it appears they are becoming quite popular in San Jose. It still makes me chuckle.
The two cups of coffee are dangerous for the same reason,
Only if they're being served in the exact same way and in the exact same situation. Which they aren't.
The jello shot example is still somewhat nonsensical as it isn't something that is not done because it would make a seller negligent, it isn't done because open container laws make it criminal.
And the open container laws exist because...?
Even if the container is open, the customer should be fully aware of the dangers of drinking and driving. Therefore, open contain laws should be unnecessary, and do not indicate any irresponsibility on behalf of the driver.
Yet drive thru liquor stores in those states have not found themselves sued out of business by victims of DUI tickets and accidents.
I wasn't aware of the fact that McDonalds was sued "out of business." They seem to have a lot of franchises, considering they were forced to shut down.
In neither situation is the alcohol defective, and in neither situation is the seller liable.
If that's the case, then should laws against them be repealed?
The purpose of the liquor store analogy is to demonstrate that a product can be allowed in some contexts but not in others. Which is obviously the case.
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
The jello shot example is still somewhat nonsensical as it isn't something that is not done because it would make a seller negligent, it isn't done because open container laws make it criminal.
And the open container laws exist because...?
Even if the container is open, the customer should be fully aware of the dangers of drinking and driving. Therefore, open contain laws should be unnecessary, and do not indicate any irresponsibility on behalf of the driver.
Open container laws exist to restrict the irresponsible behavior of motorists, not liquor stores.
Yet drive thru liquor stores in those states have not found themselves sued out of business by victims of DUI tickets and accidents.
I wasn't aware of the fact that McDonalds was sued "out of business." They seem to have a lot of franchises, considering they were forced to shut down.
I didn't imply McDonalds did or would get sued out of business. I explicitly said that if drive thru liquor stores were liable for the irresponsbile actions of their customers they would get sued out of business. However they are not, or in any case no more so than any customer that purchases alcohol from in the store. Because a customer that buys liquor from the drive thru window is expected to bear the same responsibility for their own actions as the customer that buys liquor inside. Just as the consumer that buys coffee from inside a coffee shop is expected to bear the same responsibility for their actions as the consumer that buys coffee from a drive thru window.
In neither situation is the alcohol defective, and in neither situation is the seller liable.
If that's the case, then should laws against them be repealed?
No. Because the law is not against a defective product. It is to prevent the irresponsible behavior of motorists; drinking and driving. It is the customer that is the (ir)responsible and liable party, not the seller.
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
This has been proven wrong multiple times.
It has? Because I'm pretty sure the findings of the Bogle case, here, said exactly that. That's a whole big long ruling, so I've pulled the pertinent sentence out for you:
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.
The point is that a product is not defective because of the venue of sale.
I demonstrated this.
For the consumer, it is defective. Simply saying nuh uh and making nonsensical analogies because you can't explain why the coffee is made undrinkable and dangerous doesn't make it not defective.
The danger from both cups of coffee are severe burns due to their 185 degree temperature.
Sure, if it spills all over the person. However, this is far less likely to happen in a drive thru setting where the customer made add crime herself. Greater risk requires greater precaution.
For instance, a lot of restaurants will serve steak medium rare, but they'll refuse to do the same for hamburger. Why? Because hamburger is ground up, which carries greater risk. As such, a well done hamburger may not be ideal, but it might be necessary precaution even though it negatively impacts the quality of the burger. This would be especially true if there was a history of people getting sick from undercooked hamburger and the restaurant had been specifically warned not to sell meat at this temperature by their customers.
Open container laws exist to restrict the irresponsible behavior of motorists, not liquor stores.
Why do we need to restrict the behavior at all if the product isn't defective?
I didn't imply McDonalds did or would get sued out of business. I explicitly said that if drive thru liquor stores were liable for the irresponsbile actions of their customers they would get sued out of business.
Except people buy liquor specifically to get drunk. They do not buy coffee specifically to get third degree burns.
The point of the comparison is to establish that drive thru carries greater risk that needs to be accounted for, a concept that you refuse to acknowledge as a general principle even though you acknowledge it in the case of alcohol . It is not to establish a perfect 1:1 ratio in the legal liabilities of alcohol and coffee.
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
This has been proven wrong multiple times.
It has? Because I'm pretty sure the findings of the Bogle case, here, said exactly that. That's a whole big long ruling, so I've pulled the pertinent sentence out for you:
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.
65 C is 149 F by the way.
From your link:
There has been no research performed on human skin to study the relative effects of temperature and duration of contact. However, pigs have skin very similar to human skin and there has been research using pigs. The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: “The relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns” published in (1947) 23 American Journal of Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds. At 55 C the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full thickness burn is exponential.
So if the relationship between surface temperature and exposure time is exponential, then obviously, the best thing to do is raise the temperature by an additional 35 degrees.
Mind you, the paper cites how pigs respond to surface temperature, not how pigs respond to a cup of hot liquid.
150 degree tea will not maintain it's temperature for two 2 seconds. However, it's entirely possible for 185 degree to still be above 150 degrees 2 seconds later, resulting in the necessary burns.
It is not necessary to sell coffee at all as far as that goes. However since 185 degree coffee is not defective
Yes it is. It can not be drunk and causes severe burns. It does not have to. It is faulty. That is what is called defective.
No, it is not. A product which presents a greater danger but of the same type is not defective, even if there is not any particular reason. That triple strength blender is completely unnecessarily strong, but not defective. Neither is the super fast motorcycle, the super sharp knife, the crazy hot stovetop etc.
Triple strength blender: Break up tough material
Super fast motorcycle: Racing
Super sharp knife: Cutting through bone
Not really sure what an especially hot stove top would even consist of.
You're drawing up analogies that don't work. The coffee isn't enhanced in any way whatsoever by being 185 degrees. None. It serves no purpose but to save a company money by endangering their customers rather than just using a safer method. Which if they're going to do, they're going to have to accept that they're leaving themselves open to lawsuits for needless endangerment.
A blender three times as strong as anything else on the market would not in fact have any purpose. If a commercial blender can not break it up, you can't eat it. It's why I led with that item.
In any case, the coffee is indeed advanced by its temperature; it reaches its destination in drinkable fashion. There being an alternative that would also cause this does not make it untrue. And a company is not required to perform the safest action possible regardless of cost. The number one cause of house fires is cooking. If the manufacturers of stoves and ovens could prevent most of them by simply selling units installed with built in ansul systems. The fact that they do not does not make them liable for the fires caused by their regularly manufactured stoves and ovens, because those items are not defective simply because they pose a risk.
Similarly a hot cup of coffee could be made somewhat less dangerous by super insulating the cup and reducing the temperature so it still reaches its destination hot. But that doesn't make the hotter cup of coffee defective. Incidentally since we're discussing cooler coffee again 149 degree coffee still causes third degree burns.
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
This has been proven wrong multiple times.
It has? Because I'm pretty sure the findings of the Bogle case, here, said exactly that. That's a whole big long ruling, so I've pulled the pertinent sentence out for you:
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.
65 C is 149 F by the way.
From your link:
There has been no research performed on human skin to study the relative effects of temperature and duration of contact. However, pigs have skin very similar to human skin and there has been research using pigs. The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: “The relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns” published in (1947) 23 American Journal of Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds. At 55 C the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full thickness burn is exponential.
So if the relationship between surface temperature and exposure time is exponential, then obviously, the best thing to do is raise the temperature by an additional 35 degrees.
Mind you, the paper cites how pigs respond to surface temperature, not how pigs respond to a cup of hot liquid.
150 degree tea will not maintain it's temperature for two 2 seconds. However, it's entirely possible for 185 degree to still be above 150 degrees 2 seconds later, resulting in the necessary burns.
I am sorry, but you are gong to have to give me a cite on that. It seems perfectly likely to me that 160 degree coffee could maintain its temperature when spilled in ones lap for two seconds. If you would like me to definitively believe it will not, you will have to show me something. Especially as from this portion:
At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds.
we learn that full thickness burns must happen below 50 C. Meaning the 65 C coffee must only raise the temperature of the flesh to somewhere close to 50 C to cause full thickness burns. That is a 15 degree C window. A 27 degree F window.
Let's say we have a hypothetical cold beverage, that contains a colour additive that is not neccesary for the products primary function. I spray this all over my car and myself. Is the vendor then liable for the damages - in this example purely non-physical - caused specifically by the "needless" additive?
I'm pretty sure that any beverage vendor that produces a product that doesn't wash off with soap and water would be sued regardless.
If a beverage can cause permanent damage a car body, then that's not a product that I would want to put in my mouth.
Just out of curiosity, what does non-physical damage to a car body even entail? Are you suing because the car is sad?
Sorry, my linguistics suck before 0700. I was thinking stains; Grape juice for instance. You're in your car, wearing white, expensive pants and your car has cloth seats rather than leather. An accident occurs, and your pants are no longer white. Now, making grape juice that doesn't stain is probably impossible so the "additive" in question is most certainly needed. We could probably figure out a scenario where the additive isn't needed, say it's a colour additive derived from grapes that doesn't affect the taste of the product. Is the vendor of the beverage liable for my the dry-cleaning bill, because the colour additive was, strictly speaking, not neccesary for the sale of the product (it makes it look more attractive to some customers, but some customers don't care)?
Why would it have to be permanent damage? Surely, compensation would be based of the cost of fixing the damage, rather than it's permanence? Even if it's a do-it-yourself job that just involvs picking up a stronger cleansing-chemical, there'll be costs involved in repairing the damages, costs that the spill - in this theoretical example - would not have incurred had the vendor not chosen to colour his juice.
There's no real reason why we'd need to be in a car either, or why we would limit ourslves to spills as the form of accident. Imagine a glass bottle, with a designed shape that is visually appealing, but makes the bottle itself easier to hurt oneself on if one were to fall on it. I trip and faceplant the bottle, and had it been of a less angular design, I wouldn't be blind on one eye. Is the vendor of that beverage and bottle liable for the damages?
In other words, I'm wondering about the transition from "not neccesary" to "defective".
I am sorry, but you are gong to have to give me a cite on that. It seems perfectly likely to me that 160 degree coffee could maintain its temperature when spilled in ones lap for two seconds. If you would like me to definitively believe it will not, you will have to show me something.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If coffee transfer its heat energy to the target, then the coffee loses heat energy. Therefore, it cannot maintain the same temperature without completely breaking the laws of physics.
At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds.
we learn that full thickness burns must happen below 50 C.
Yeah, there are two possibilities.
1) The experiment involved a cup of coffee, for no apparent reason. The coffee broke the laws of physics by transferring heat to the target pig while maintaining a constant temperature for over 4 minutes. Any heat lost to the pig would then have to be replenished, presumably from the same extra-dimensional source from which the Incredible Hulks draws his excess mass upon transformation.
2) The experiment did not involve a cup of coffee, since they were merely testing the effects of surface temperature and exposure time. They were not testing the effects of heat loss on surface temperature. As such, temperature is maintained in the experiment.
We have been trying to explain the basic laws of thermodynamics to you for 10 pages now. This is not a new argument. This is not a new concept. If you have actually been paying attention to this thread, you should already know this.
I am sorry, but you are gong to have to give me a cite on that. It seems perfectly likely to me that 160 degree coffee could maintain its temperature when spilled in ones lap for two seconds. If you would like me to definitively believe it will not, you will have to show me something.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If coffee transfer its heat energy to the target, then the coffee loses heat energy. Therefore, it cannot maintain the same temperature without completely breaking the laws of physics.
At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds.
we learn that full thickness burns must happen below 50 C.
Yeah, there are two possibilities.
1) The experiment involved a cup of coffee, for no apparent reason. The coffee broke the laws of physics by transferring heat to the target pig while maintaining a constant temperature for over 4 minutes. Any heat lost to the pig would then have to be replenished, presumably from the same extra-dimensional source from which the Incredible Hulks draws his excess mass upon transformation.
2) The experiment did not involve a cup of coffee, since they were merely testing the effects of surface temperature and exposure time. They were not testing the effects of heat loss on surface temperature. As such, temperature is maintained in the experiment.
We have been trying to explain the basic laws of thermodynamics to you for 10 pages now. This is not a new argument. This is not a new concept. If you have actually been paying attention to this thread, you should already know this.
Ok, you are not understanding the proposal here. Coffee is drinkable between 150 and 160 degrees, making 160 degrees a perfectly reasonable serving temperature. If you spill an entire glass of 160 degree liquid on yourself, and it takes two seconds to cool by ten degrees, you have now sustained deep tissue burns. That would be raising the temperature of your skin from 34 C to 44 C, a ten degree change. On the one hand there is a greater volume of flesh than coffee. On the other hand flesh has a lower specific heat making it easier to heat up. The coffee also need not raise the temperature of all of the flesh, but merely a portion of it. In addition, this is merely what it would take to cause full thickness burns in two seconds. Any additional time would only make this more likely. It seems an entirely reasonable proposal.
Hell you don't even have to agree with it to realize that it obviously does not violate the basic laws of thermodynamics in any way shape or form.
If you spill an entire glass of 160 degree liquid on yourself, and it takes two seconds to cool by ten degrees, you have now sustained deep tissue burns. That would be raising the temperature of your skin from 34 C to 44 C, a ten degree change. On the one hand there is a greater volume of flesh than coffee. On the other hand flesh has a lower specific heat making it easier to heat up. The coffee also need not raise the temperature of all of the flesh, but merely a portion of it. In addition, this is merely what it would take to cause full thickness burns in two seconds.
MentalExercise, you are citing specific number from an article where the only number they provide you with is surface temperature and surface time. That is not sufficient information.
You're assuming that the experiment in question already accounts for heat loss. You have absolutely no basis for this claim. Moreover, the level of heat loss will change based on the volume of liquid. A table spoon of hot liquid will experience more heat loss than 1000 gallons of hot liquid. In order to account for heat loss, not only would you have to start at the same temperature, but you would also have to account for volume.
So how much volume was used in the experiment? The answer is: You don't know. You're assuming that the amount of liquid used in this experiment is comparable to the amount of liquid found in a cup of coffee, but you have absolutely no basis for this claim. The only scenario where volume wouldn't matter is if the volume was so large that heat loss was negligible, or if heat was maintained via an external source. This was not the case in the McDonalds lawsuit.
To put it this way, suppose I write a paper titled, "The relative importance of time and oil temperature in the preparation of french fries." How would you assume that the experiment was conducted? Are you going to assume that the experiment was conducted in a situation where french fries are placed in a fryer and temperature is maintained, or are you going to assume that the french fries are simply being dumped in a vat of hot oil that receives no additional heat throughout the experiment?
If I hear a statistic saying, "French fries cook in 5 minutes in 350 degree oil," do I assume that I can take a cup of 350 degree oil, dump it on my french fries, and then my french fries will be done in 5 minutes? Of course not.
MentalExercise, you are citing specific number from an article where the only number they provide you with is surface temperature and surface time. That is not sufficient information.
You're assuming that the experiment in question already accounts for heat loss. You have absolutely no basis for this claim. Moreover, the level of heat loss will change based on the volume of liquid. A table spoon of hot liquid will experience more heat loss than 1000 gallons of hot liquid. In order to account for heat loss, not only would you have to start at the same temperature, but you would also have to account for volume.
So how much volume was used in the experiment? The answer is: You don't know. You're assuming that the amount of liquid used in this experiment is comparable to the amount of liquid found in a cup of coffee, but you have absolutely no basis for this claim. The only scenario where volume wouldn't matter is if the volume was so large that heat loss was negligible, or if heat was maintained via an external source. This was not the case in the McDonalds lawsuit.
To put it this way, suppose I write a paper titled, "The relative importance of time and oil temperature in the preparation of french fries." How would you assume that the experiment was conducted? Are you going to assume that the experiment was conducted in a situation where french fries are placed in a fryer and temperature is maintained, or are you going to assume that the french fries are simply being dumped in a vat of hot oil that receives no additional heat throughout the experiment?
If I hear a statistic saying, "French fries cook in 5 minutes in 350 degree oil," do I assume that I can take a cup of 350 degree oil, dump it on my french fries, and then my french fries will be done in 5 minutes? Of course not.
Umm... I think you are not understanding what I wrote. I not only accounted for heat loss, and differences in volume, but factored in the specific heat of the two materials in question, although admittedly probably because I know that that particular factor weighs in my favor. Try reading it again:
If you spill an entire glass of 160 degree liquid on yourself, This is accounting for the coffee losing heat: and it takes two seconds to cool by ten degrees, you have now sustained deep tissue burns.
This is accounting for the necessary change in temperature for skin to burn: That would be raising the temperature of your skin from 34 C to 44 C, a ten degree change.
This is accounting for volume. I even used the word in the original post!: On the one hand there is a greater volume of flesh than coffee.
This is accounting for the different specific heats of the two materials: On the other hand flesh has a lower specific heat making it easier to heat up.
And this is re-accounting for volume:The coffee also need not raise the temperature of all of the flesh, but merely a portion of it.
In addition, this is merely what it would take to cause full thickness burns in two seconds. Any additional time would only make this more likely. It seems an entirely reasonable proposal.
Again, you don't need to agree with that to recognize that it does in fact show an understanding of, and attempt to control for various variables, some of which you mentioned specifically! Clearly I do not know any more than you do, this was merely a hypothesis based on the facts I had on hand and a fair understanding of physics.
Anyway, this is the post I was gonna make, till you kind of annoyed me by completely misrepresenting what I said, and then critisizing it for ignoring things that I actually specficially addressed:
I think it is time for me to move on. The general legal questions of negligence, liability, and defect was an interesting topic. Thermodynamics as applied to a hypothetical situation which no one has yet or will in the forseable future test seems much less entertaining. Especially as it is not material to the case, in my opinion. I was going to lay out my whole case one last time, but found that there were so many various statements I attempted to refute that after fifteen minutes I decided it wasn't really worth it. If any cared they could go back and read the thread, especially since I've made about a quarter of the posts in it! :P
And so I will leave with just one last example. I think it's moot anyway, since I do maintain that 185 degrees is not an uncommon temperature for coffee to be served at, but in any case:
Being more dangerous than usual, but in the same manner, does not make a product defective. Coffee which I spill on myself and causes me third degree burns is no more defective than coffee which I spill on myself and causes me second degree burns. I have no excuse to handle either as less than dangerous products which can cause serious harm. Similarly a heavier than average refigerator which falls on me due to my own action is not defective because it is heavier and hurts me more. Whether the refrigerator is heavier because it uses a bigger compressor, or cheaper materials, some designer thought it would look cooler than way, or no reason at all has no bearing.
In the end though gotten a great deal of enjoyment out of arguing with you in this silly thread Schrodinger. Thanks.
Posts
So you expected Stella to know that the coffee would melt her skin from her body within seconds of contact (as opposed to the much more minor burns that normal people in similar situations would have experienced in their lifetimes), but you don't expect her to realize that McDonalds coffee isn't freshly brewed.
Huh?
And once again, you're missing the point.
If someone complains that guacamole shouldn't be made with food coloring and hydrogenated oils, you could try replying with, "But guacamole is supposed to be green and fatty!" But then you would be missing the point. If someone says "Guacamole should be a nice green color," that could be because the green color is a sign that it is fresh and natural. If you are using food coloring on hydrogenated oils, then your product is no longer fresh and natural. So yes, guacamole is supposed to be green and fatty. But serving up a product like Kraft is missing the point.
Similarly, we're arguing that coffee shouldn't be maintained on high temperatures for long periods of time. That isn't just us saying this, the links that you yourself provided says the same thing.
Saying "Well, coffee is supposed to be hot" as a defense is like saying, "Well, guacamole is supposed to be green."
No, it is not. A product which presents a greater danger but of the same type is not defective, even if there is not any particular reason. That triple strength blender is completely unnecessarily strong, but not defective. Neither is the super fast motorcycle, the super sharp knife, the crazy hot stovetop etc.
--LeVar Burton
What temperature are you arguing coffee should be maintained at to be safe enough to not cause burns without making it undesirable to customers?
Oh, I wasn't aware of the fact that Stella spilled coffee on herself on purpose. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, she probably shouldn't have done that, knowing that it would result in burns.
It's funny.
So if a woman bought boiling hot coffee at a drive thru where the coffee didn't need to be boiling hot, the seller wouldn't be responsible for that, because the woman should have accounted the risk of being severely burnt as a result of unnecessary hotness.
By that same logic, why is it wrong for McDonalds to sell customers open containers of liquor at the drive through? Shouldn't customers be just a lot more aware of the risk of getting drunk?
After all, the purpose of alcohol is to get drunk. The purpose of coffee is not to get burnt.
So using your logic, the dangers of alcohol should be a lot more foreseeable on behalf of the consumer.
Triple strength blender: Break up tough material
Super fast motorcycle: Racing
Super sharp knife: Cutting through bone
Not really sure what an especially hot stove top would even consist of.
You're drawing up analogies that don't work. The coffee isn't enhanced in any way whatsoever by being 185 degrees. None. It serves no purpose but to save a company money by endangering their customers rather than just using a safer method. Which if they're going to do, they're going to have to accept that they're leaving themselves open to lawsuits for needless endangerment.
It's completely relevant. It couldn't be more relevant.
It's relevant because it addresses McDonald's actions, not Stella's. 185 degrees is only an appropriate temperature when coffee is served fresh.
Did you get that bit right there? I made it italicized and bold for you. Here, I'll repeat the relevant part for you:
185 degree temperature coffee is only appropriate when the coffee is served fresh.
Can you guess how McDonald's serves their coffee? I'll give you a hint: not fresh.
I don't use my coffee to scald things.
What if you're fighting the aliens from Signs?
Normal water does damage. 185 degree coffee would probably be a a super weapon.
Which of these two things has killed hundreds of thousands of people:
a. drunk driving
b. McDonald's coffee burns
You get a hint: It's not b. In light of the fact that alcohol abuse has killed hundreds of thousands of people, and that coffee has seriously injured a small handful, which deserves greater greater legal scrutiny?
This is like comparing a candle to the sun. The situations are different by so many hundreds of times of risk as to not be comparable.
So good coffee is allowed to be served dangeroulsy hot, while bad coffee is not? Either 185 is a dangerous temperature for a drink or it is not.
You're confusing the issue, which is becoming increasingly common with the people on your side of this debate.
Good coffee is served FRESH at 185 degrees, meaning when it is poured out of the coffee pot, into the cup, and then has cream and sugar added.
Which causes a lot of loss of heat until it is merely hot instead of scalding.
It's science!
We're not limited to focusing only on drunk driving though. Our court system is in fact capable of hearing cases where a business is showing negligence.
Like, say, when they'd rather serve a scalding liquid in a poorly insulated cup rather than a hot liquid in a well insulated one to cut costs.
Outside of this thread, I'm pretty damn sure alcohol abuse (in its many forms, including drunk driving) has received orders of magnitude more legal scrutiny. How many criminal proceedings? How many claims for injury stemming from alcohol (both from traffic accidents, and other negligent acts relating to both the consumption and service of alcohol)?
EDIT: This entire thread, or at least 99% of it, is talking about one legal case, in the history of our court system, ever. With a few references to a handful of other cases thrown in.
EDIT: Which is to say that the general legal scrutiny is on par with the harm involved. And the damages were proportional to the revenues of the party found to be at fault (given that they were punitive). If anything, the only excessive legal scrutiny involved is from those that oppose the outcome of this one fucking case, and seek to overhaul our entire system because of it.
In order to refute an analogy, you have to prove that they are different in terms of the property being compared. It's not enough to show that the two things being compared are different. The fact that the two things are different is what makes it an analogy, rather than an axiom.
So Kobe beef Carpaccio at a 5-Star Italian restaurant is allowed to contain raw beef, while hamburger meat at McDonalds is not? Either raw beef is dangerous to eat, or it is not.
So bars are allowed to serve Jello shots containing alcohol, while the McDonalds drive thru is not? Either Jello shots are dangerous, or it is not.
What about black coffee? Is black coffee served at a lower temperture because there's no cream or sugar being added?
Edit: and Carpaccio can be served rare or raw because it hasn't been ground up, which causes all those nasty microbes and bacteria to be spread among your meat.
But the time your coffee has fully brewed the temperature will have fallen significantly below 185. The optimal serving temperature for coffee is around 160 and ideal drinking temperature [I.E. you rate what temperature people prefer] is between 140 and 160. This is for black coffee. Coffee with cream will be cooler [due to the cream]
Serving 185 degree coffee out of a drive through window is defective. Its so defective that McDonalds knew that it was defective because they had been sued before as a result and decided that the court costs to defend were lower than the increased profits from selling coffee at lower temperatures. . And because they knew it was defective they lost pretty hard.
That's off topic, but funny!
--LeVar Burton
The refutation is that context matters. For instance, raw beef is a product that is allowed in some circumstances, but not others.
You then reply by explaining that raw beef is allowed in some circumstances, but not others.
Which was the entire point being made in the refutation.
sidenote: to my recollection, it was burned down shortly after opening. i think they decided it was arson. last i heard the owner was serving coffee in the parking lot while waiting for the investigation to go through.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Let's say we have a hypothetical cold beverage, that contains a colour additive that is not neccesary for the products primary function. I spray this all over my car and myself. Is the vendor then liable for the damages - in this example purely non-physical - caused specifically by the "needless" additive?
Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that any beverage vendor that produces a product that doesn't wash off with soap and water would be sued regardless.
If a beverage can cause permanent damage a car body, then that's not a product that I would want to put in my mouth.
Just out of curiosity, what does non-physical damage to a car body even entail? Are you suing because the car is sad?
The point has nothing to do with whether a product is allowed in one circumstance and so must be allowed in all circumstances. The point is that a product is not defective because of the venue of sale.
Carpaccio and raw hamburger are two different products, made two different ways, which is the source of one being safe and the other dangerous. The two cups of coffee are dangerous for the same reason, capable of causing the same damage. And we expect consumers to be aware of that danger regardless of venue of sale.
The jello shot example is still somewhat nonsensical as it isn't something that is not done because it would make a seller negligent, it isn't done because open container laws make it criminal. However drive thru liquor is legal in some states. Yet drive thru liquor stores in those states have not found themselves sued out of business by victims of DUI tickets and accidents. Because a customer that is expected to assume the risk and responsibility of purchasing and drinking alcohol from inside a store is equally expected to assume that risk and responsibility when they purchase alcohol while driving their car. In neither situation is the alcohol defective, and in neither situation is the seller liable.
That was actually just the first link I found on the subject, but I heard about topless coffeeshops while my fiance and I were watching Chelsea Lately, as it appears they are becoming quite popular in San Jose. It still makes me chuckle.
--LeVar Burton
Only if they're being served in the exact same way and in the exact same situation. Which they aren't.
And the open container laws exist because...?
Even if the container is open, the customer should be fully aware of the dangers of drinking and driving. Therefore, open contain laws should be unnecessary, and do not indicate any irresponsibility on behalf of the driver.
I wasn't aware of the fact that McDonalds was sued "out of business." They seem to have a lot of franchises, considering they were forced to shut down.
If that's the case, then should laws against them be repealed?
The purpose of the liquor store analogy is to demonstrate that a product can be allowed in some contexts but not in others. Which is obviously the case.
This has been proven wrong multiple times.
The danger from both cups of coffee are severe burns due to their 185 degree temperature.
Open container laws exist to restrict the irresponsible behavior of motorists, not liquor stores.
I didn't imply McDonalds did or would get sued out of business. I explicitly said that if drive thru liquor stores were liable for the irresponsbile actions of their customers they would get sued out of business. However they are not, or in any case no more so than any customer that purchases alcohol from in the store. Because a customer that buys liquor from the drive thru window is expected to bear the same responsibility for their own actions as the customer that buys liquor inside. Just as the consumer that buys coffee from inside a coffee shop is expected to bear the same responsibility for their actions as the consumer that buys coffee from a drive thru window.
No. Because the law is not against a defective product. It is to prevent the irresponsible behavior of motorists; drinking and driving. It is the customer that is the (ir)responsible and liable party, not the seller.
--LeVar Burton
It has? Because I'm pretty sure the findings of the Bogle case, here, said exactly that. That's a whole big long ruling, so I've pulled the pertinent sentence out for you:
65 C is 149 F by the way.
--LeVar Burton
I demonstrated this.
For the consumer, it is defective. Simply saying nuh uh and making nonsensical analogies because you can't explain why the coffee is made undrinkable and dangerous doesn't make it not defective.
Sure, if it spills all over the person. However, this is far less likely to happen in a drive thru setting where the customer made add crime herself. Greater risk requires greater precaution.
For instance, a lot of restaurants will serve steak medium rare, but they'll refuse to do the same for hamburger. Why? Because hamburger is ground up, which carries greater risk. As such, a well done hamburger may not be ideal, but it might be necessary precaution even though it negatively impacts the quality of the burger. This would be especially true if there was a history of people getting sick from undercooked hamburger and the restaurant had been specifically warned not to sell meat at this temperature by their customers.
Why do we need to restrict the behavior at all if the product isn't defective?
Except people buy liquor specifically to get drunk. They do not buy coffee specifically to get third degree burns.
The point of the comparison is to establish that drive thru carries greater risk that needs to be accounted for, a concept that you refuse to acknowledge as a general principle even though you acknowledge it in the case of alcohol . It is not to establish a perfect 1:1 ratio in the legal liabilities of alcohol and coffee.
From your link:
There has been no research performed on human skin to study the relative effects of temperature and duration of contact. However, pigs have skin very similar to human skin and there has been research using pigs. The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: “The relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns” published in (1947) 23 American Journal of Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn is 257 seconds. At 55 C the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full thickness burn is exponential.
So if the relationship between surface temperature and exposure time is exponential, then obviously, the best thing to do is raise the temperature by an additional 35 degrees.
Mind you, the paper cites how pigs respond to surface temperature, not how pigs respond to a cup of hot liquid.
150 degree tea will not maintain it's temperature for two 2 seconds. However, it's entirely possible for 185 degree to still be above 150 degrees 2 seconds later, resulting in the necessary burns.
A blender three times as strong as anything else on the market would not in fact have any purpose. If a commercial blender can not break it up, you can't eat it. It's why I led with that item.
In any case, the coffee is indeed advanced by its temperature; it reaches its destination in drinkable fashion. There being an alternative that would also cause this does not make it untrue. And a company is not required to perform the safest action possible regardless of cost. The number one cause of house fires is cooking. If the manufacturers of stoves and ovens could prevent most of them by simply selling units installed with built in ansul systems. The fact that they do not does not make them liable for the fires caused by their regularly manufactured stoves and ovens, because those items are not defective simply because they pose a risk.
Similarly a hot cup of coffee could be made somewhat less dangerous by super insulating the cup and reducing the temperature so it still reaches its destination hot. But that doesn't make the hotter cup of coffee defective. Incidentally since we're discussing cooler coffee again 149 degree coffee still causes third degree burns.
--LeVar Burton
I am sorry, but you are gong to have to give me a cite on that. It seems perfectly likely to me that 160 degree coffee could maintain its temperature when spilled in ones lap for two seconds. If you would like me to definitively believe it will not, you will have to show me something. Especially as from this portion:
we learn that full thickness burns must happen below 50 C. Meaning the 65 C coffee must only raise the temperature of the flesh to somewhere close to 50 C to cause full thickness burns. That is a 15 degree C window. A 27 degree F window.
--LeVar Burton
Why would it have to be permanent damage? Surely, compensation would be based of the cost of fixing the damage, rather than it's permanence? Even if it's a do-it-yourself job that just involvs picking up a stronger cleansing-chemical, there'll be costs involved in repairing the damages, costs that the spill - in this theoretical example - would not have incurred had the vendor not chosen to colour his juice.
There's no real reason why we'd need to be in a car either, or why we would limit ourslves to spills as the form of accident. Imagine a glass bottle, with a designed shape that is visually appealing, but makes the bottle itself easier to hurt oneself on if one were to fall on it. I trip and faceplant the bottle, and had it been of a less angular design, I wouldn't be blind on one eye. Is the vendor of that beverage and bottle liable for the damages?
In other words, I'm wondering about the transition from "not neccesary" to "defective".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If coffee transfer its heat energy to the target, then the coffee loses heat energy. Therefore, it cannot maintain the same temperature without completely breaking the laws of physics.
Yeah, there are two possibilities.
1) The experiment involved a cup of coffee, for no apparent reason. The coffee broke the laws of physics by transferring heat to the target pig while maintaining a constant temperature for over 4 minutes. Any heat lost to the pig would then have to be replenished, presumably from the same extra-dimensional source from which the Incredible Hulks draws his excess mass upon transformation.
2) The experiment did not involve a cup of coffee, since they were merely testing the effects of surface temperature and exposure time. They were not testing the effects of heat loss on surface temperature. As such, temperature is maintained in the experiment.
We have been trying to explain the basic laws of thermodynamics to you for 10 pages now. This is not a new argument. This is not a new concept. If you have actually been paying attention to this thread, you should already know this.
Ok, you are not understanding the proposal here. Coffee is drinkable between 150 and 160 degrees, making 160 degrees a perfectly reasonable serving temperature. If you spill an entire glass of 160 degree liquid on yourself, and it takes two seconds to cool by ten degrees, you have now sustained deep tissue burns. That would be raising the temperature of your skin from 34 C to 44 C, a ten degree change. On the one hand there is a greater volume of flesh than coffee. On the other hand flesh has a lower specific heat making it easier to heat up. The coffee also need not raise the temperature of all of the flesh, but merely a portion of it. In addition, this is merely what it would take to cause full thickness burns in two seconds. Any additional time would only make this more likely. It seems an entirely reasonable proposal.
Hell you don't even have to agree with it to realize that it obviously does not violate the basic laws of thermodynamics in any way shape or form.
The limed, is pure silly goosery.
--LeVar Burton
MentalExercise, you are citing specific number from an article where the only number they provide you with is surface temperature and surface time. That is not sufficient information.
You're assuming that the experiment in question already accounts for heat loss. You have absolutely no basis for this claim. Moreover, the level of heat loss will change based on the volume of liquid. A table spoon of hot liquid will experience more heat loss than 1000 gallons of hot liquid. In order to account for heat loss, not only would you have to start at the same temperature, but you would also have to account for volume.
So how much volume was used in the experiment? The answer is: You don't know. You're assuming that the amount of liquid used in this experiment is comparable to the amount of liquid found in a cup of coffee, but you have absolutely no basis for this claim. The only scenario where volume wouldn't matter is if the volume was so large that heat loss was negligible, or if heat was maintained via an external source. This was not the case in the McDonalds lawsuit.
To put it this way, suppose I write a paper titled, "The relative importance of time and oil temperature in the preparation of french fries." How would you assume that the experiment was conducted? Are you going to assume that the experiment was conducted in a situation where french fries are placed in a fryer and temperature is maintained, or are you going to assume that the french fries are simply being dumped in a vat of hot oil that receives no additional heat throughout the experiment?
If I hear a statistic saying, "French fries cook in 5 minutes in 350 degree oil," do I assume that I can take a cup of 350 degree oil, dump it on my french fries, and then my french fries will be done in 5 minutes? Of course not.
Umm... I think you are not understanding what I wrote. I not only accounted for heat loss, and differences in volume, but factored in the specific heat of the two materials in question, although admittedly probably because I know that that particular factor weighs in my favor. Try reading it again:
If you spill an entire glass of 160 degree liquid on yourself, This is accounting for the coffee losing heat: and it takes two seconds to cool by ten degrees, you have now sustained deep tissue burns.
This is accounting for the necessary change in temperature for skin to burn: That would be raising the temperature of your skin from 34 C to 44 C, a ten degree change.
This is accounting for volume. I even used the word in the original post!: On the one hand there is a greater volume of flesh than coffee.
This is accounting for the different specific heats of the two materials: On the other hand flesh has a lower specific heat making it easier to heat up.
And this is re-accounting for volume:The coffee also need not raise the temperature of all of the flesh, but merely a portion of it.
In addition, this is merely what it would take to cause full thickness burns in two seconds. Any additional time would only make this more likely. It seems an entirely reasonable proposal.
Again, you don't need to agree with that to recognize that it does in fact show an understanding of, and attempt to control for various variables, some of which you mentioned specifically! Clearly I do not know any more than you do, this was merely a hypothesis based on the facts I had on hand and a fair understanding of physics.
Anyway, this is the post I was gonna make, till you kind of annoyed me by completely misrepresenting what I said, and then critisizing it for ignoring things that I actually specficially addressed:
I think it is time for me to move on. The general legal questions of negligence, liability, and defect was an interesting topic. Thermodynamics as applied to a hypothetical situation which no one has yet or will in the forseable future test seems much less entertaining. Especially as it is not material to the case, in my opinion. I was going to lay out my whole case one last time, but found that there were so many various statements I attempted to refute that after fifteen minutes I decided it wasn't really worth it. If any cared they could go back and read the thread, especially since I've made about a quarter of the posts in it! :P
And so I will leave with just one last example. I think it's moot anyway, since I do maintain that 185 degrees is not an uncommon temperature for coffee to be served at, but in any case:
Being more dangerous than usual, but in the same manner, does not make a product defective. Coffee which I spill on myself and causes me third degree burns is no more defective than coffee which I spill on myself and causes me second degree burns. I have no excuse to handle either as less than dangerous products which can cause serious harm. Similarly a heavier than average refigerator which falls on me due to my own action is not defective because it is heavier and hurts me more. Whether the refrigerator is heavier because it uses a bigger compressor, or cheaper materials, some designer thought it would look cooler than way, or no reason at all has no bearing.
In the end though gotten a great deal of enjoyment out of arguing with you in this silly thread Schrodinger. Thanks.
--LeVar Burton