You keep saying that, and keep citing "law.com" and i cant keep finding anyone with credentials that is saying it. In fact, the law.com article seems to be the only place that has that recomendation and attributes it to starbucks that is not attributing the claim to the law.com article
wikipedia does say that the serving temperature of esperesso tops out at 158 degrees though.
"Moreover, most people prefer coffee at 161.8 degrees Fahrenheit, a University of California at Davis study shows"
So obviously they werent serving it that hot becasue "people wanted it that hot" because optimal temp was 30 degrees lower.
No, I just talked about that. Please read posts before responding. I mistakenly attributed it to Berkeley and not Davis, but same study. Three things: 1) Coffee gets cooler over time. Not hotter. So you're going to have to aim well above the average. Otherwise, 50% of your customers don't get what they want. Aim a little high, and it's just a matter of time or cream. 2) Speaking of time and cream, I'm assuming that many of those people who like it at 161.8 like it so after they've added cream, or after they've finsihed the commute and are at their desk, or even both. Again, it's only getting colder. Which is why most people want it hot. 3.) 161.8 is still rapid-3rd-degree-burns temperature, so what's your point?
As for the rest of your post, you're cherry picking sources. You do us all a favor if when you list serving temperatures for espresso, you'd also include, from those same sources, the note that this is a "significantly lower" temperature because you're talking about a very small amount of liquid in a shot glass.
And since this little tangent we're on right now started with me claiming 180 as the "upper end" of ideal serving temperatures, I find it strange that you think you're making any sort of point by cherry-picking sources that list 175, a mere 5 degrees less, as the upper end. I was trying to be generous, I know for a fact that many restaurants target 190 as the ideal serving temperature. Seriously, you're not even interested in actually making a point, you're just trying to go in sophistry circles with me, right?
So anyway, I'm going to continue citing source after source until the obvious truth of what I'm telling you, which should have been common sense from the beginning, is so fucking blantant and undeniable that you'll just leave the thread. I'm sure most people quit reading this thread a while ago anyway.
I hope official court documents from a government Web site are a reputable enough source for you.
[quote=U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals]The pertinent inquiry in this case is whether Hardee’s coffee, which is served at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, namely human consumption.[/quote]
Side note: the plaintiff lost that case, and the appeal. The judge even cited another McDonald's case (in which the plaintiff lost) in his decision.
Here's another neat one to read. Just decided recently. In this case, a fucking baby was burned by a hot drink, when there was no warning about hot contents and the customer doesn't even get a lid.
Of course, the plaintiff still lost. The great thing about this link is all the background. It's a real good history of the tort on these matters. They all lead to this basic conclusion: coffee is hot. If you see steam coming out of something, it's hot. Careful, hot things can burn. How badly? That all depends on a lot of things, but the point is that you know it can burn you. Common knowledge.
Judges and trials aren't magic things that always give the correct answer and have all of the information needed. Judges and juries give their decision based on the evidence presented. Also, that court case you cited basically says that the reason the plaintiff lost was because he didn't give information on whether it was feasible or not to lower the serving temperature. It says nothing about whether 180 degrees is too hot or not. He didn't lose the case because it was normal to serve at that temperature.
Also, that court case you cited basically says that the reason the plaintiff lost was because he didn't give information on whether it was feasible or not to lower the serving temperature.
No, what I cited was an appeal. An appeal based on the fact that that guy's testimony was thrown out. The case, just like all other cases like it (except one), in all other countries, was decided in favor of the defendants. There was nothing special about the Liebeck case, the evidence and arguments weren't any different. The jury just had an emotional reaction to the old woman's pain and the perceived coldness of the defense. Liebeck got lucky and she knew it, which is why she settled before the appeals came in.
Also, that court case you cited basically says that the reason the plaintiff lost was because he didn't give information on whether it was feasible or not to lower the serving temperature. It says nothing about whether 180 degrees is too hot or not. He didn't lose the case because it was normal to serve at that temperature.
No, what I cited was an appeal. An appeal based on the fact that that guy's testimony was thrown out. The case, just like all other cases like it (except one), in all other countries, was decided in favor of the defendants. There was nothing special about the Liebeck case, the evidence and arguments weren't any different. The jury just had an emotional reaction to the old woman's pain and the perceived coldness of the defense. Liebeck got lucky and she knew it, which is why she settled before the appeals came in.
The case said nothing about whether the coffee was too hot. It matters a whole lot why the case was thrown out. Citing that case is worthless if it said the case wasn't valid due to a lack of scientific evidence.
Most cases are settled out of court. There is nothing special about Liebeck settling out of court.
Court cases in other countries don't matter because their laws are very different.
And since this little tangent we're on right now started with me claiming 180 as the "upper end" of ideal serving temperatures, I find it strange that you think you're making any sort of point by cherry-picking sources that list 175, a mere 5 degrees less, as the upper end.
We've been over this. Five degrees can make a huge difference.
The case said nothing about whether the coffee was too hot. It matters a whole lot why the case was thrown out. Citing that case is worthless if it said the case wasn't valid due to a lack of scientific evidence.
Huh? That testimony was thrown out because whether or not something can burn you is not the relevant question when it comes to coffee being "too hot." Thats what I've been trying to tell you since page 1. The judge clearly noted that no one was disputing that 180-degree liquid can burn. But to answer whether or not it is too hot is a question about coffee, not skin.
We've been over this. Five degrees can make a huge difference.
As does ten. And 180, the temperature Goum is disputing as an upper-end of industry serving temperatures, is a full 10 degrees less than the upper end of a serving temperature I just gave you.
You guys are really something else with this shit. I've been obviously right about his for several pages now. Even Shinto admitted "truthiness" to what I'm saying, and he hates acknowledging anything I say as correct. If you're just doing this to dick around and troll, please clue me in, so I can move on to something else.
Also, that court case you cited basically says that the reason the plaintiff lost was because he didn't give information on whether it was feasible or not to lower the serving temperature.
No, what I cited was an appeal. An appeal based on the fact that that guy's testimony was thrown out. The case, just like all other cases like it (except one), in all other countries, was decided in favor of the defendants. There was nothing special about the Liebeck case, the evidence and arguments weren't any different. The jury just had an emotional reaction to the old woman's pain and the perceived coldness of the defense. Liebeck got lucky and she knew it, which is why she settled before the appeals came in.
An appeal on to whether or not an expert witness testifying for the plantif could have the jury hear his testimony
The testimony was thrown out because the expert witness did not have a backround in the service industry[and was instead a professor of thermodynamics]
The jury heard no evidence as to whether or not the coffee being served by hardies was unfit for human comspution because of this
As does ten. And 180, the temperature Goum is disputing as an upper-end of industry serving temperatures, is a full 10 degrees less than the upper end of a serving temperature I just gave you.
EXCEPT THAT NO ONE FUCKING NO ONE FUCKING SAYS THAT 180 IS THE FUCKING SERVING TEMPERATURE. THERE ARE NO TRUE ATTRIBUTATIONS TO STARBUCKS, THERE ARE ONLY SITES THAT SAY THAT 180 IS THE HOLDING TEMPERATURE.
I love how some of the people in this thread can have their arguments reduced to: If a guy walks into McDonalds and the cashier shoots him in the face, that's his own fault, I mean, he could have gone to Taco Bell mirite lolzanus.
I love how some of the people in this thread can have their arguments reduced to: If a guy walks into McDonalds and the cashier shoots him in the face, that's his own fault, I mean, he could have gone to Taco Bell mirite lolzanus.
Well hey, being shot in the face would only be a few inches away from missing entirely, in which case the guy would've been fine.
-Okay I just pulled out my Pocket Quality Reference Guide from McDonald's in 2000 Under the entry for Hot Driks - Coffee it says
Brew temperature = 195-205 F (91-96C)
Holding Temperature = 180-190 F (82-88C)
Holding time is an hour including brewing time. The times and temps are the same for all 3 different machines used.
Using my home pot at a test it seems to be about the same. The temperatures are about what you guys are finding on the net. Personally I felt this case should have been about that one store since it is not company wide policy to serve scalding coffee, and also the woman should have taken some personal responsibility. You don't put coffee between your legs, especially if you are wearing man made fabrics. I doubtt cotton pants would have melted. I have been hit and yes had some burns from overflowing pots at work and guess what, at home too.
On a related note Tim Hortons the Coffee kings up here, makes there coffee stronger than most places/people at home because we take a lot of cream and sugar and usually get it to go. I find Timmy's coffee to be gross, but most McD's coffee to be not to bad. Of course that could be from 3 years of opening and drinking theres for free at 5am.
Well, I can't do much if you just claim that all my sources are "not true."
I asked you to please read posts before responding. You threw out my Law.com source. You didn't even provide a contradictory fact cite or even so much as an attempt at explaining why you feel that source should be discredited (meanwhile your favorite source is fucking Wikipedia). So fine, I just cited an official court record from a government Web site documenting Hardee's serving temperature as 180-190. Serving, Goumindong, not holding. For the sake of not repeating myself yet again: Serving, Goumindong. Serving temperature. Serving temperature. The temperature at which they serve their coffee. Serving. Not holding temperature, because that might probably be just a few degrees higher. Serving. 180 - 190. This citation you simply ignored, or started screaming about holding temperatures again, I can't really tell.
I'm not sure why you can't just concede this point and move on. I have cited numerous sources listing serving temperatures upwards of 180, you've cited some that cap it at 175. Whatever, all of these temperatures, even the ones you cite, will burn you badly, instantly. That is the reality of coffee. It is served hot.
We've both also cited what have been determined to be "safe" temperatures, as testified by experts. Those temperatures range from 110 to 150. Even those temperatures will all burn you, just not as badly or as quickly. But what's the cutoff point for how bad or fast a burn occurs, before you deem it not McDonalds' fault?
My point this whole time is that there is no overlap. The ideal drinking temperature (which, incidentally, is not the same as serving temperature) is 161.8, a temperature well above any temperature deemed "safe." And that includes with cream and with any lag time between serving and drinking, so realistically it needs to be served even hotter than that just to please the average person, ignoring all those to the right of average.
There is no middle ground. Either you serve coffee that can burn people, just like everyone else does, or very few people will want your coffee. That is why every single hot beverage trial ever has lost, unless it was either faulty equipment, an employee's fault, or the fluke Liebeck case.
I love how some of the people in this thread can have their arguments reduced to: If a guy walks into McDonalds and the cashier shoots him in the face, that's his own fault, I mean, he could have gone to Taco Bell mirite lolzanus.
I can't imagine why you think that is even close to an accurate analogy for the situation or an accurate description of this discussion.
Because truthiness is something that only sounds true, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is actualy true.
Also. Again, the hardee case, the jury never heard testimony as to the dangerousness or the fitness of coffee that hot for human consumption
Do you get this. The jury never heard testimony about whether or not drinking coffee that hot was dangerous. Talking about how the case confirms that 180 is how hot you should serve coffee is just fucking ridiculous, because the jury never got to hear any testimony that said "you shouldnt do this"
However, McDonalds was wrong for serving her a cup of coffee roughly the same temperature as their FRY GREASE.
$2.6 million was a little much, I thought. $460,000, or however much it was, seemed more reasonable.
The 2.6 million dollars was not for the woman for damages, the 2.6 million dollars was so that McDonalds would get the point that serving coffee the same temperature as their fry grease[if that is true, i would think the grease would be much hotter] was a bad thing to do.
The 2.6 million was based entirely on the size of the company and the revenue they made from coffee.
Because truthiness is something that only sounds true, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is actualy true.
But, you admit that Hardee's is yet another cited example I have provided you of a major coffee seller who serves upwards of 180. Or are you just moving on from that now? Because that's really what the last several pages have been about - whether or not temperatues that high are common in the industry outside McD's.
Again, the hardee case, the jury never heard testimony as to the dangerousness or the fitness of coffee that hot for human consumption.
Do you get this. The jury never heard testimony about whether or not drinking coffee that hot was dangerous. Talking about how the case confirms that 180 is how hot you should serve coffee is just fucking ridiculous, because the jury never got to hear any testimony that said "you shouldnt do this"
No, the case confirms yet another retailer who does in fact serve it at that temperature. I've cited that Hardees does, Starbucks does, and case in point McDonalds does. So how many do you need before you accept what many other cases have decidedly established: that these temperatures are how coffee is served?
As for the testimony that was thrown out, the decision is all right there. The expert said that coffee can burn you at that temperature, and therefore should not be served at that temperature. The judge correctly noted that no one, not even the defense, is disputing that said temperature can burn you. But the expert was not qualified whatsoever to comment on how coffee should be served, since he had no experience in the beverage industry. In order to claim that coffee that hot is "defective" (the crux of all of these cases), your expert would need to be a coffee serving expert. But those never get invited to trial, because not a fucking one of them would ever say that a 180 serving temperature was defective.
Again, just another way of saying that coffee, by its very nature, can burn you. Beware.
Hardees does, MCD does, Starbucks does not. The only evidence you have shown that says starbucks does is an unsourced law.com article.
None of that changes the basic facts in the case. 180 degree coffee is unfit for human consumption, the risk involved in drinking coffee served that hot is unreasonable and unepected by the customers.
Goumindong on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
Using my home pot at a test it seems to be about the same. The temperatures are about what you guys are finding on the net. Personally I felt this case should have been about that one store since it is not company wide policy to serve scalding coffee, and also the woman should have taken some personal responsibility. You don't put coffee between your legs, especially if you are wearing man made fabrics. I doubtt cotton pants would have melted. I have been hit and yes had some burns from overflowing pots at work and guess what, at home too.
She was determined to be partially responsible for the accident. Cases like this are rarely either/or. She was determined to be 20% liable for the accident, while McD's bore 80% responsible for serving coffee at a fucking stupid temprature.
You sell millions of cups of a liquid product, and occasional spills are inevitable. Combine that with the fact that it is common practice to add cream and sugar to coffee after purchasing, and that the cups are in no way designed to make this possible without removing the lid. Knowing that spills are inevitable, and that the product will be opened by a large number of customers after purchase makes serving it at a temprature where skin contact is extremely dangerous a terrible idea.
180 degree coffee is unfit for human consumption, the risk involved in drinking coffee served that hot is unreasonable and unepected by the customers.
I still have trouble believing that, while almost all sources declare 175 to be "ideal," and sources indicate McDonald's competition serving at 190, 180 is still "unfit for human consumption."
And the only source I've found so far that lists that actual estimated temperature of the Liebeck coffee puts it at 170, not 180.
But you guys keep ignoring the obvious: coffee in the ideal range will burn you. Do you have any response at all to this? How do you account for it? How can anyone who sells coffee avoid liability?
But you guys keep ignoring the obvious: coffee in the ideal range will burn you. Do you have any response at all to this? How do you account for it? How can anyone who sells coffee avoid liability?
Coffee in the ideal range is designed to be served in ideal settings. You know, served immeadiately, sitting at a level table, with easy access if you want to add cream/sugar.
Again, I think the ideal range for serving fish is raw, since I'm a big fan of sushi. But that doesn't mean I would order raw fish from McDonalds, because that's not the right setting for it.
I'd say one in 24 million (which includes drive-thru and counter service) is pretty rare; rare enough that you can't really accuse such settings as improper for serving coffee.
I know this thread is dying (if not already dead), but there is a suit going against Starbucks right now in Central Indiana for burns to a child from their hot chocolate.
Oh, and I thought this cartoon should be in the thread somewhere.
I know this thread is dying (if not already dead), but there is a suit going against Starbucks right now in Central Indiana for burns to a child from their hot chocolate.
Oh, and I thought this cartoon should be in the thread somewhere.
I think the whole idea of punitive damages is kind of iffy anyway.
I know this thread is dying (if not already dead), but there is a suit going against Starbucks right now in Central Indiana for burns to a child from their hot chocolate.
Oh, and I thought this cartoon should be in the thread somewhere.
I think the whole idea of punitive damages is kind of iffy anyway.
Because corporations should have the motivation to commit acts directly harmful to society?
I think the whole idea of punitive damages is kind of iffy anyway.
One could argue that punitive damages and tort are one of the most socially progressive forces in our current system. Just think about all the wrongs they've righted.
I think the whole idea of punitive damages is kind of iffy anyway.
One could argue that punitive damages and tort are one of the most socially progressive forces in our current system. Just think about all the wrongs they've righted.
Is that supposed to be sarcasm or not? I can think of tons of wrongs they have righted.
I think the whole idea of punitive damages is kind of iffy anyway.
One could argue that punitive damages and tort are one of the most socially progressive forces in our current system. Just think about all the wrongs they've righted.
Is that supposed to be sarcasm or not? I can think of tons of wrongs they have righted.
No, as far as I can gather, Yar supportes punitive damages, just not this one.
No, as far as I can gather, Yar supportes punitive damages, just not this one.
Yes. It is my opinion that the idea that "No, the coffee lady was right and McDonalds deserved it, it's textbook liability" is an urban legend, popularized by Internet gossip, people who like to sound smart, and people who have an interest in supporting the plaintiff's side of liability no matter what.
It's a somewhat broad definition of "urban legend" I'm using there, but that's pretty much what it is. The Liebeck case is a fluke and every other case like it has always gone the other way. McDs fucked up their defense, but even then they still shouldn't have lost.
In general, though, I think people greatly underestimate how much good our tort system really does accomplish. So many of the protections keeping us alive today that we take for granted are the result of somebody getting the fuck sued out of them in the past.
Posts
wikipedia does say that the serving temperature of esperesso tops out at 158 degrees though.
We have Bunn
Serving between 155 and 175
http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
We have cafe makers
155 for espresso
http://www.cafemakers.com/news/better-coffee-tips.html
Starbucks only says
"Coffee should never be so hot as to potentially burn your tongue"[which is below 180f for the record]
http://www.starbucks.com/customer/faq_qanda.asp?name=brewequip
millcreek coffe says
155-175... and it even says to hold it at 185! Wow, holding temp and serving temp are different
http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm
Here is a better and more comprehensive article about the case[scroll up for more detailed info, its a complation]
Note that the starbucks rep makes no mention to the WSJ about serving temps. Also note that the WSJ is actualy a reputable newspaper.
http://www2.bc.cc.ca.us/gdumler/Eng%201A%20Online/Editorials%20&%20Articles/mcdonalds_coffee_lawsuit.htm
Something you also fail to mention from that law.com article...
"Moreover, most people prefer coffee at 161.8 degrees Fahrenheit, a University of California at Davis study shows"
So obviously they werent serving it that hot becasue "people wanted it that hot" because optimal temp was 30 degrees lower.
I see what you did there.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As for the rest of your post, you're cherry picking sources. You do us all a favor if when you list serving temperatures for espresso, you'd also include, from those same sources, the note that this is a "significantly lower" temperature because you're talking about a very small amount of liquid in a shot glass.
And since this little tangent we're on right now started with me claiming 180 as the "upper end" of ideal serving temperatures, I find it strange that you think you're making any sort of point by cherry-picking sources that list 175, a mere 5 degrees less, as the upper end. I was trying to be generous, I know for a fact that many restaurants target 190 as the ideal serving temperature. Seriously, you're not even interested in actually making a point, you're just trying to go in sophistry circles with me, right?
So anyway, I'm going to continue citing source after source until the obvious truth of what I'm telling you, which should have been common sense from the beginning, is so fucking blantant and undeniable that you'll just leave the thread. I'm sure most people quit reading this thread a while ago anyway.
I hope official court documents from a government Web site are a reputable enough source for you.
[quote=U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals]The pertinent inquiry in this case is whether Hardee’s coffee, which is served at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, namely human consumption.[/quote]
Side note: the plaintiff lost that case, and the appeal. The judge even cited another McDonald's case (in which the plaintiff lost) in his decision.
Here's another neat one to read. Just decided recently. In this case, a fucking baby was burned by a hot drink, when there was no warning about hot contents and the customer doesn't even get a lid.
Of course, the plaintiff still lost. The great thing about this link is all the background. It's a real good history of the tort on these matters. They all lead to this basic conclusion: coffee is hot. If you see steam coming out of something, it's hot. Careful, hot things can burn. How badly? That all depends on a lot of things, but the point is that you know it can burn you. Common knowledge.
Or based on the emotions involved.
No, what I cited was an appeal. An appeal based on the fact that that guy's testimony was thrown out. The case, just like all other cases like it (except one), in all other countries, was decided in favor of the defendants. There was nothing special about the Liebeck case, the evidence and arguments weren't any different. The jury just had an emotional reaction to the old woman's pain and the perceived coldness of the defense. Liebeck got lucky and she knew it, which is why she settled before the appeals came in.
Yeah, but I'm wondering how many times I'm going to have to show sources listing that as the serving temperature before you accept it as normal.
Most cases are settled out of court. There is nothing special about Liebeck settling out of court.
Court cases in other countries don't matter because their laws are very different.
The reasons matter. What's right is what's right.
As does ten. And 180, the temperature Goum is disputing as an upper-end of industry serving temperatures, is a full 10 degrees less than the upper end of a serving temperature I just gave you.
You guys are really something else with this shit. I've been obviously right about his for several pages now. Even Shinto admitted "truthiness" to what I'm saying, and he hates acknowledging anything I say as correct. If you're just doing this to dick around and troll, please clue me in, so I can move on to something else.
An appeal on to whether or not an expert witness testifying for the plantif could have the jury hear his testimony
The testimony was thrown out because the expert witness did not have a backround in the service industry[and was instead a professor of thermodynamics]
The jury heard no evidence as to whether or not the coffee being served by hardies was unfit for human comspution because of this
EXCEPT THAT NO ONE FUCKING NO ONE FUCKING SAYS THAT 180 IS THE FUCKING SERVING TEMPERATURE. THERE ARE NO TRUE ATTRIBUTATIONS TO STARBUCKS, THERE ARE ONLY SITES THAT SAY THAT 180 IS THE HOLDING TEMPERATURE.
HOLDING TEMPERATURE =/= SERVING TEMPERATURE
Well hey, being shot in the face would only be a few inches away from missing entirely, in which case the guy would've been fine.
That's right, everyone knows that coffee cools at least 15 degrees as your barista pours it into a paper cup.
- John Stuart Mill
Brew temperature = 195-205 F (91-96C)
Holding Temperature = 180-190 F (82-88C)
Holding time is an hour including brewing time. The times and temps are the same for all 3 different machines used.
Using my home pot at a test it seems to be about the same. The temperatures are about what you guys are finding on the net. Personally I felt this case should have been about that one store since it is not company wide policy to serve scalding coffee, and also the woman should have taken some personal responsibility. You don't put coffee between your legs, especially if you are wearing man made fabrics. I doubtt cotton pants would have melted. I have been hit and yes had some burns from overflowing pots at work and guess what, at home too.
On a related note Tim Hortons the Coffee kings up here, makes there coffee stronger than most places/people at home because we take a lot of cream and sugar and usually get it to go. I find Timmy's coffee to be gross, but most McD's coffee to be not to bad. Of course that could be from 3 years of opening and drinking theres for free at 5am.
I asked you to please read posts before responding. You threw out my Law.com source. You didn't even provide a contradictory fact cite or even so much as an attempt at explaining why you feel that source should be discredited (meanwhile your favorite source is fucking Wikipedia). So fine, I just cited an official court record from a government Web site documenting Hardee's serving temperature as 180-190. Serving, Goumindong, not holding. For the sake of not repeating myself yet again: Serving, Goumindong. Serving temperature. Serving temperature. The temperature at which they serve their coffee. Serving. Not holding temperature, because that might probably be just a few degrees higher. Serving. 180 - 190. This citation you simply ignored, or started screaming about holding temperatures again, I can't really tell.
I'm not sure why you can't just concede this point and move on. I have cited numerous sources listing serving temperatures upwards of 180, you've cited some that cap it at 175. Whatever, all of these temperatures, even the ones you cite, will burn you badly, instantly. That is the reality of coffee. It is served hot.
We've both also cited what have been determined to be "safe" temperatures, as testified by experts. Those temperatures range from 110 to 150. Even those temperatures will all burn you, just not as badly or as quickly. But what's the cutoff point for how bad or fast a burn occurs, before you deem it not McDonalds' fault?
My point this whole time is that there is no overlap. The ideal drinking temperature (which, incidentally, is not the same as serving temperature) is 161.8, a temperature well above any temperature deemed "safe." And that includes with cream and with any lag time between serving and drinking, so realistically it needs to be served even hotter than that just to please the average person, ignoring all those to the right of average.
There is no middle ground. Either you serve coffee that can burn people, just like everyone else does, or very few people will want your coffee. That is why every single hot beverage trial ever has lost, unless it was either faulty equipment, an employee's fault, or the fluke Liebeck case.
I can't imagine why you think that is even close to an accurate analogy for the situation or an accurate description of this discussion.
One store doesn't have millions to shell out. No lawyer would even take it.
All those temps you just cited cause serious burns very quickly.
Because...?
Also. Again, the hardee case, the jury never heard testimony as to the dangerousness or the fitness of coffee that hot for human consumption
Do you get this. The jury never heard testimony about whether or not drinking coffee that hot was dangerous. Talking about how the case confirms that 180 is how hot you should serve coffee is just fucking ridiculous, because the jury never got to hear any testimony that said "you shouldnt do this"
However, McDonalds was wrong for serving her a cup of coffee roughly the same temperature as their FRY GREASE.
$2.6 million was a little much, I thought. $460,000, or however much it was, seemed more reasonable.
You're not L33T enough for IDI/RN FTP!
The 2.6 million dollars was not for the woman for damages, the 2.6 million dollars was so that McDonalds would get the point that serving coffee the same temperature as their fry grease[if that is true, i would think the grease would be much hotter] was a bad thing to do.
The 2.6 million was based entirely on the size of the company and the revenue they made from coffee.
No, the case confirms yet another retailer who does in fact serve it at that temperature. I've cited that Hardees does, Starbucks does, and case in point McDonalds does. So how many do you need before you accept what many other cases have decidedly established: that these temperatures are how coffee is served?
As for the testimony that was thrown out, the decision is all right there. The expert said that coffee can burn you at that temperature, and therefore should not be served at that temperature. The judge correctly noted that no one, not even the defense, is disputing that said temperature can burn you. But the expert was not qualified whatsoever to comment on how coffee should be served, since he had no experience in the beverage industry. In order to claim that coffee that hot is "defective" (the crux of all of these cases), your expert would need to be a coffee serving expert. But those never get invited to trial, because not a fucking one of them would ever say that a 180 serving temperature was defective.
Again, just another way of saying that coffee, by its very nature, can burn you. Beware.
None of that changes the basic facts in the case. 180 degree coffee is unfit for human consumption, the risk involved in drinking coffee served that hot is unreasonable and unepected by the customers.
She was determined to be partially responsible for the accident. Cases like this are rarely either/or. She was determined to be 20% liable for the accident, while McD's bore 80% responsible for serving coffee at a fucking stupid temprature.
You sell millions of cups of a liquid product, and occasional spills are inevitable. Combine that with the fact that it is common practice to add cream and sugar to coffee after purchasing, and that the cups are in no way designed to make this possible without removing the lid. Knowing that spills are inevitable, and that the product will be opened by a large number of customers after purchase makes serving it at a temprature where skin contact is extremely dangerous a terrible idea.
And the only source I've found so far that lists that actual estimated temperature of the Liebeck coffee puts it at 170, not 180.
But you guys keep ignoring the obvious: coffee in the ideal range will burn you. Do you have any response at all to this? How do you account for it? How can anyone who sells coffee avoid liability?
Coffee in the ideal range is designed to be served in ideal settings. You know, served immeadiately, sitting at a level table, with easy access if you want to add cream/sugar.
Again, I think the ideal range for serving fish is raw, since I'm a big fan of sushi. But that doesn't mean I would order raw fish from McDonalds, because that's not the right setting for it.
Oh, and I thought this cartoon should be in the thread somewhere.
Because corporations should have the motivation to commit acts directly harmful to society?
No, as far as I can gather, Yar supportes punitive damages, just not this one.
Yes. It is my opinion that the idea that "No, the coffee lady was right and McDonalds deserved it, it's textbook liability" is an urban legend, popularized by Internet gossip, people who like to sound smart, and people who have an interest in supporting the plaintiff's side of liability no matter what.
It's a somewhat broad definition of "urban legend" I'm using there, but that's pretty much what it is. The Liebeck case is a fluke and every other case like it has always gone the other way. McDs fucked up their defense, but even then they still shouldn't have lost.
In general, though, I think people greatly underestimate how much good our tort system really does accomplish. So many of the protections keeping us alive today that we take for granted are the result of somebody getting the fuck sued out of them in the past.
Mother-fucking-one-hundred-and-ninety-eight.
198F. Official from corporate.
She even poured a few different beverages for me and stuck thermometers in them. (They like me a lot at this place.)
For hot cocoa it was actually over 200. The steamed milk was only 160, though.
Keep in mind, this is the coffee shop whose coffee was rated #1 by Consumer Reports, so this is not a matter of them trying to mask shitty coffee.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry