Is McDonalds Selectively Killing Americans?

[Regnad Kcin]

...I'm a little fuzzy here, so could you please explain to me why McDonald's should pay for something that was clearly the customer's fault?

"Customer's fault."

See, that may be the crux of this friendly disagreement.

My general take on the matter is that a customer has a reasonable expectation for, and will take sufficient precaution against, products that could rightly be deemed of moderate risk. If you serve me hot coffee, soup, pizza, or whatever, I should be prepared to handle with care. However, with the exchange comes the expectation: when you serve me food, you are telling me it is ready to be consumed. Or close to ready. Or safe to handle.

The plaintiff in the McDonald's suit hadn't (as far as I know) sipped her coffee or otherwise tested it. She made the reasonable assumption that she was being handed a safe product. That she spilled it is not pertinent to the discussion. That it caused third-degree burns is.

McDonald's had been dancing close to this issue for some length of time and it finally came back to, er, bite them.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...I believe that Regnad's point about the jury was that they listened to the entirety of the evidence and arguments, and came to their conclusion, while those of us informed by the media have a surface-level understanding of the case. They can still be wrong, according to your [CFLarson's] judgement, but then you might want to have facts at hand, such as those presented to you here already.

That is what I meant with regard to the jury's decision, yes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why are you talking about criminal cases? Was the McDonald's case a criminal case.

I am talking about the O.J. case. The criminal case.

This is the point where I regret getting into a ridiculous pissing match with the likes of you. If you think that I'm going to state that juries determine absolute reality, of course I won't.

Thank you.

But the nature of the criminal and civil procedure is that the finder of fact (either jury or judge) gets to find the facts in the eyes of the law. That is no mere tautology, but my way of saying that the determination of existential reality is not at issue, but just a legal finding. You can agree or disagree with a jury's decision based on your judgement. This is all beside the point.

But, as we know, the eyes of the law merely determines what is "right" in the eyes of the law. As we probably agree on, O.J. was guilty as hell. What does that prove? That he didn't kill Nicole and Ron? Only in a legal sense. Which doesn't determine reality, which we also agree on.

Are we, as skeptics, here to discuss reality-as-defined-by-law, or here to discuss reality, period?

I believe that Regnad's point about the jury was that they listened to the entirety of the evidence and arguments, and came to their conclusion, while those of us informed by the media have a surface-level understanding of the case. They can still be wrong, according to your judgement, but then you might want to have facts at hand, such as those presented to you here already.

I have, I have looked at them, and I have found them less than convincing.

Jeebus Creebus, man! A woman buys a cup of coffee - which she expects to be hot - and she puts it between her thighs, whilst being in a rocky car?

You tell me: Just how stupid does one have to be, before the law should not protect you?

You tell me.

 

[CFLarsen]

"Customer's fault."

See, that may be the crux of this friendly disagreement.

My general take on the matter is that a customer has a reasonable expectation for, and will take sufficient precaution against, products that could rightly be deemed of moderate risk. If you serve me hot coffee, soup, pizza, or whatever, I should be prepared to handle with care. However, with the exchange comes the expectation: when you serve me food, you are telling me it is ready to be consumed. Or close to ready. Or safe.

The plaintiff in the McDonald's suit hadn't (as far as I know) sipped her coffee or otherwise tested it. She made the reasonable assumption that she was being handed a safe product. That she spilled it is not pertinent to the discussion. That it caused third-degree burns is.

McDonald's had been dancing close to this issue for some length of time and it finally came back to, er, bite them.

Did she buy hot coffee or ice coffee? I don't think there are any other forms, but I am happy to be redirected to a company that offers luke-warm coffee.

"Larson"? How can you possibly push the quote button and get my name wrong?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Gee, they rush to get their customers their coffee at a temperature that will ensure that the customers don't get lukewarm coffee.

Gee. I'm offended.

Are you suggesting that there is no middle ground between coffee served "scalding hot" and "lukewarm?"

Okie doke. Please state the right temperature to serve coffee.

I don't know. And that's not the issue here.

Out of how many millions cups of coffee sold?

It would be enough if it happened once if the incidence was shown to have merit.

Sheesh, people drinking hot beverages will spill them. Klutzes exist, just ask Nixon. I'm one of them, but I don't go around sueing other people for my clumsiness.

Though I'm responding to a post made prior to another of yours I've already responded to, it bears repeating: The plaintiff did not sue because she was clumsy, but rather because the beverage served to her caused third-degree burns due to its being hotter than necessary for satisfactory oral enjoyment.

Again, you put a beverage you know is very hot between your thighs when riding in a car that can bump anytime is not a valid reason to claim innocence.

If the coffee had been served at a cooler temperature, but still sufficiently warm/hot for proper enjoyment, it likely would've stung her or maybe left a reddish welt and her life would've gone on as it has for me, having suffered my share of momentary or short-time-lingering discomfort because of hot food. Problem is, she received no slight pain, but rather...third-degree burns.

Lawsuits determine reality now? Want to talk about O.J.? Gee, he's innocent, isn't he? The Monkey Trial determined that Evolution is bunk?

Already addressed.

I'm not confusing preparation temperature with serving temperature. I acknowledged that there will be a drop in temperature between the time of preparation and the time of serving. But who wants coffee that is lukewarm?

Hands up, anyone?

This is the second time (that I know of) you've used the term "lukewarm." Though I've responded in this post, I should point out it is a strawman.

I need to see the precise acceptable serving temperature, before I will acknowledge the verdict of this case. Otherwise, we are merely shooting bull here.

As I've said, I do not know.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Did she buy hot coffee or ice coffee? I don't think there are any other forms, but I am happy to be redirected to a company that offers luke-warm coffee.

You seem unusually wedded to the "luke-warm" term. What can I say?

"Larson"? How can you possibly push the quote button and get my name wrong?

My apologies. It was inadvertent.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Did she buy hot coffee or ice coffee? I don't think there are any other forms, but I am happy to be redirected to a company that offers luke-warm coffee...

Allow me to revisit this.

"Ice coffee" or "hot coffee" are the only forms? Please don't tell me you're serious.

 

[Z]

Hi.

The coffee lawsuit was warranted.

Don't care... if she was stupid enough to put the cup between her legs and remove the lid while driving, she was an idiot, and deserved nothing.

Don't know why the coffee temperature has to be low enough to not cause burns if people act stupid and pour it on themselves.

And nothing in that link says she wasn't an idiot for pouring the coffee on herself. I notice they even reduced her settlement for her fault in the accident - though far less of a reduction than seems warranted, given her idiocy.

Yes, the coffee was too hot - but what kind of moron didn't know that at this point? Oh, yes - the same kind of moron who would tuck it between her legs while driving to add cream to it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Your ad-homs notwithstanding, it doesn't matter where she "put" the coffee. It was served at a dangerous temperature.

Would you be so cavalier in your judgement if she had nothing to do with how she handled the coffee and it was spilled on her? Because that's the essence of the suit: any momentary negligence of hers was outweighed by the company's proven long-term pattern.

 

[hgc]

Allow me to revisit this.

"Ice coffee" or "hot coffee" are the only forms? Please don't tell me you're serious.

It appears that hot is hot and not is not -- all middle excluded. He will maintain this position despite all pleadings, posting by attrition until you give up and leave the thread.

 

[hgc]

Just a little insight into the business decision behind this. Corporations make risk/reward calculations all the time in the quest for market share and greater revenue and income figures. Nothing earth-shattering about that. These calculations include the cost of defending, settling and paying cash, and occassionally PR, penalties from lawsuits -- frivolous and meritorious. McDonald's knew their coffee was dangerously hot, but also knew that they enjoyed a certain benefit to their fastfood breakfast market-share because they had a well-deserved reputation for handing over the coffee hot enough that it would stay hot enough to taste good for some time after the customer took possession of it. So even though they knew it was dangerous, they calculated that it was well worth the risk of lawsuits from their customers. They probably never imagined that someone would burn their nether regions to such a severe degree. To top it off, they probably never imagined that a jury would award multi-millions. It was the publicity from the size of the award, rather than the actual cash outlay, that was more damaging to the bottom line. How much business is lost because the coffee cools off that much faster? I have no idea, but I bet they know to the penny.

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you suggesting that there is no middle ground between coffee served "scalding hot" and "lukewarm?"

No, I am saying that when you buy hot coffee, you don't expect it to be lukewarm. You'd be pretty pissed off, if it was.

I don't know. And that's not the issue here.

It's exactly the issue here.

It would be enough if it happened once if the incidence was shown to have merit.

The only "merit" I see here is that you get scalded, if you spill hot coffee on you. Surprise.

Though I'm responding to a post made prior to another of yours I've already responded to, it bears repeating: The plaintiff did not sue because she was clumsy, but rather because the beverage served to her caused third-degree burns due to its being hotter than necessary for satisfactory oral enjoyment.

And that temperature, you cannot quantify.

If the coffee had been served at a cooler temperature, but still sufficiently warm/hot for proper enjoyment, it likely would've stung her or maybe left a reddish welt and her life would've gone on as it has for me, having suffered my share of momentary or short-time-lingering discomfort because of hot food. Problem is, she received no slight pain, but rather...third-degree burns.

But how hot is that? If you can't quantify it, we don't know where that line is.

This is the second time (that I know of) you've used the term "lukewarm." Though I've responded in this post, I should point out it is a strawman.

I should point out that it is not. You speak of "cooler temperature" and "still sufficiently warm/hot for proper enjoyment" (yes, I noticed your switch from "hot" to "warm").

As I've said, I do not know.

Then, you have no argument.

Allow me to revisit this.

"Ice coffee" or "hot coffee" are the only forms? Please don't tell me you're serious.

When you buy ice coffee, you expect it to be icy cold. When you buy hot coffee, you expect it to be hot.

It appears that hot is hot and not is not -- all middle excluded. He will maintain this position despite all pleadings, posting by attrition until you give up and leave the thread.

Considering that I have mentioned lukewarm several times now, I would say that your criticism is unfounded.

Just how stupid does one have to be, before the law should not protect you?

In this case, you believe that the company who sold her the coffee is liable. Let's say she was carrying a gun, which she knew was loaded. The gun goes off, killing someone. Is the gun company she bought it from liable?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[LotusMegami]

So yeah, you're saying that their is no middle ground between lukewarm and hot enough to cause third-degree burns.

Do we all understand how serious third-degree burns are? Maybe a google image search is in order.

Besides, I heard that a McDonald's employee skilled the drink in her lap, and the public just assumed that she was holding it between her legs.

 

[Archangel]

hot enough to taste good for some time after the customer took possession of it.

And by serving it that hot they were able to use cheaper beans, in the first place*.








*I'm heading off home, so if needed I'll provide the cite tomorrow.

 

[athon]

I can't speak for McDonald's, although I did run one of their Mcafe's for a bit a number of years ago. I can't quote their recommended coffee temperatures, unfortunately.

I can, however, give a bit of information from my experience as a barrista some time ago. I supported myself in my undergrad in a number of part time jobs, and during my teaching degree as a trained barrista.

Temperatures in the machine should not exceed 200.C, lest they burn the grinds. Grinds will vary in size (yet should be of a standard sized cut) and temperatures should vary a little in accordance with this, however you'll find that standard steam temperatures for esspresso coffee will be between 180 and 200.C.

For non-esspresso coffee, such as the standard McDonald's filter brew, it is simply boiled water.

For both types, serving temperature will be just below boiling point, at between 80.C and 98.C. Adding milk will decrease this rapidly, however black coffee (as anybody who drinks the stuff knows) will always be initially scalding if it is to be considered fresh. Painful temperatures are anywhere between 70.C and above (conceding different pain thresholds). Second degree burns can be sustained above 85.C, depending on various factors. Third degree burns would be bloody difficult with water poured from a coffee decanter into a cup, and then transferred to the skin, but I guess not impossible.

In short, I'd expect fresh black coffee to burn my skin to at least blister-point (first degree) based on my serving experience. In fact, I'd be wanting my money back if it didn't.

I don't know if this helps the discussion or not.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Very helpful.

 

[Z]

Your ad-homs notwithstanding, it doesn't matter where she "put" the coffee. It was served at a dangerous temperature.

Would you be so cavalier in your judgement if she had nothing to do with how she handled the coffee and it was spilled on her? Because that's the essence of the suit: any momentary negligence of hers was outweighed by the company's proven long-term pattern.

If it was spilled on her, the person to blame would be the one doing the spilling.

Period.

The company's policies seemed to be fine for the vast majority of customers. If a fraction were too stupid to realize that hot, fresh coffee is... well... hot... that's their problem. The same way it's the consumers' problem if they don't realizing inhaling fumes is bad for them, or taking drugs and liquor at the same time is bad for them, or mixing ammonia and bleach is bad for them. All these 'warning labels' are a crock.

Personally, I'm for modern Darwinism... let the stupid die off. I think our society would be much improved if we let the idiots kill themselves off. If you are a mature and healthy adult, and you don't realize that hot coffee tucked between your thighs while driving is pretty damned stupid, then you deserve the burns that result. If you're a child, or mentally incompetent, you should have a caretaker to keep you from making stupid mistakes.

And don't think this is some 'high horse' thing - I've made my share of stupid mistakes, too. I deserve a LOT worse than I've ever gotten.

 

[CFLarsen]

Personally, I'm for modern Darwinism... let the stupid die off. I think our society would be much improved if we let the idiots kill themselves off. If you are a mature and healthy adult, and you don't realize that hot coffee tucked between your thighs while driving is pretty damned stupid, then you deserve the burns that result. If you're a child, or mentally incompetent, you should have a caretaker to keep you from making stupid mistakes.

And don't think this is some 'high horse' thing - I've made my share of stupid mistakes, too. I deserve a LOT worse than I've ever gotten.

What is "modern Darwinism"?

 

[Luke T.]

I thought the McDonald's lawsuit was a result of the cup lid not being secure. That McDonald's knew the lids they used did not stay on the cups and chose not to improve them.

 

[Luke T.]

Well. Looks like I was wrong.

Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

Bolding mine.

During trial, McDonald’s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.[5]In addition, many of these claims were settled, amounting to more than $500,000.[6]