5 ms·

I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190 degrees sho

I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190 degrees should make you liable for people's handling of a known hot product. Heck, if I sell you 212 degree water and it is no secret that it is super hot, what did I do wrong? Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing severe damage. Please help me understand the other side of the story.

drvdevd 10y ago
My all time favorite explanation: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/
prodigal_erik 10y ago
No human can drink 212 degree water, so you can't sell it calling it a beverage.
- user5994461 10y ago
  No human can drink 190 degree coffee, yet many humans consider perfectly normal to ask for one.
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    Why would anyone ever do that? Are they going to put it on a thermos and drive around with it until lunch?
    - torgoguys 10y ago
      I've read elsewhere that if you order Starbucks coffee "extra hot" it comes out at about 180 degrees. Some people recommend you order that temperature sometimes: http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... MCD here was routinely serving it at 180-190.
anigbrowl 10y ago
No. This story has been circulating for 22 years now, there is more than enough information for you to find it on your own. I've literally spent two decades explaining it to people and at this point 'please explain it to me' requests come off as being asked in bad faith.
- torgoguys 10y ago
  I'm aware of information out there. I've read other information out there. No, I have not spent hours pouring over the minutiae, but my question is not in bad faith. This will probably be downvoted too, but, golly gee, I'm just trying to have an open mind here and seeing if someone can convince me that MCD should be at fault. A hot product is hot and inherently carries those sorts of risks. Yes, it was hotter than it needed to be. I get that. So what? How is it some sort of gross negligence? (That's a real question, not rhetorical--I don't understand. 180-190 is not out-of-this world hot, but yes, is extra hot compared to 160 degree coffee). My newborn example in the grandparent post still applies if served at a cooler temperature. They'll get burned right away. And for adults? The temperature coffee is served at all coffee shops everywhere can be inherently dangerous and cause 3rd degree burns (see page 3 http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide.pdf http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide...). While people may not understand the specific number of seconds required, they get the gist--be careful with hot liquids.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    OK about the good faith thing, but the relevant facts are laid out in the article for you. Why don't you try disputing their significance instead of just saying 'I don't get it!' over and over?
    - torgoguys 10y ago
      Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely: - MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees - they had 700 previous reports of burns - MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?

drvdevd 10y ago

My all time favorite explanation: http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/ http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/

prodigal_erik 10y ago

No human can drink 212 degree water, so you can't sell it calling it a beverage.

user5994461 10y ago
No human can drink 190 degree coffee, yet many humans consider perfectly normal to ask for one.
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  Why would anyone ever do that? Are they going to put it on a thermos and drive around with it until lunch?
  - torgoguys 10y ago
    I've read elsewhere that if you order Starbucks coffee "extra hot" it comes out at about 180 degrees. Some people recommend you order that temperature sometimes: http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-drink-extra-hot-201... MCD here was routinely serving it at 180-190.

anigbrowl 10y ago

No. This story has been circulating for 22 years now, there is more than enough information for you to find it on your own. I've literally spent two decades explaining it to people and at this point 'please explain it to me' requests come off as being asked in bad faith.

torgoguys 10y ago
I'm aware of information out there. I've read other information out there. No, I have not spent hours pouring over the minutiae, but my question is not in bad faith. This will probably be downvoted too, but, golly gee, I'm just trying to have an open mind here and seeing if someone can convince me that MCD should be at fault. A hot product is hot and inherently carries those sorts of risks. Yes, it was hotter than it needed to be. I get that. So what? How is it some sort of gross negligence? (That's a real question, not rhetorical--I don't understand. 180-190 is not out-of-this world hot, but yes, is extra hot compared to 160 degree coffee). My newborn example in the grandparent post still applies if served at a cooler temperature. They'll get burned right away. And for adults? The temperature coffee is served at all coffee shops everywhere can be inherently dangerous and cause 3rd degree burns (see page 3 http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide.pdf http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator%27sGuide...). While people may not understand the specific number of seconds required, they get the gist--be careful with hot liquids.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  OK about the good faith thing, but the relevant facts are laid out in the article for you. Why don't you try disputing their significance instead of just saying 'I don't get it!' over and over?
  - torgoguys 10y ago
    Sure. All of my questions have been about the product and why serving it should have caused legal liability. So ignoring the parts of the article that simply points out that most people don't correctly know details what happened (whether she was driving, dollar amounts she actually got, etc.) and focusing on what the article has to say about the product and why it might carry liability for MCD we get very little from this article, namely: - MCD served coffee at up to 190 degrees - they had 700 previous reports of burns - MCD claimed customers wanted it served hot Those are the precious few facts we have about the product from the article. I'm aware of other facts of the case not covered in the article (business reasons MCD chose to serve at that temp and such), but it still doesn't connect A to B; why serving coffee extra hot (at a temp you can get at Starbucks if you request it) should mean MCD is liable for burn injuries if you take the lid off and spill it on yourself. Do you get where I'm coming from?