4 ms·

Coffee should be served safely drinkable for the same reason that Burger King doesn't hand you a beef patty while it's still on fire.

mc32 10y ago
Ok, so are office Mr Coffees at work serving me coffee the wrong way? Should they serve coffee at lower temps? Or if I use a percolator.... So I agree McD was callous and unsympathetic. I also think they should have looked after their customer... But I still find the argument that McDs was at fault a bit unsettling because we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. It's not something you gulp down. It gets sipped for a reason.
- gamblor956 10y ago
  What you're not understanding is that the Mr. Coffee's and percolators you are using are not serving you coffee that is as hot as McDonald's was at the time of the lawsuit. The coffee scalded the woman instantly--she would have been injured whether it spilled on her or she tried to drink it. Indeed, at the levels served, she could have suffered far worse injuries if she had just tried to drink it, from the coffee scalding her throat and trachea. Companies changed their behavior after the lawsuit. Now they serve coffee hot, but not scaldingly hot.
- raisedbyninjas 10y ago
  A Keurig brews at 192 degrees by default. After dispensing into a room temperature mug, it can fall 10-15 degrees. McDonald's served theirs at 190. 15 degrees may not sound like a lot, but it means the difference in 3rd degree burns is a few seconds vs. 10s of seconds.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    When you're up above 80 degC, the difference between 2nd-degree and 3rd-degree burns is measured in tenths of a second. Granted, liquids don't stay that hot for long without a vacuum insulated vessel, but common sense says that you should not serve anything in a restaurant that can cause permanent disfigurement after a spill faster than the victim can possibly react to the situation. You might as well serve cups of 10 M HCl. It doesn't matter how well you label it as "CAUTION! Strong acid! Do not ingest or touch!" because eventually, everything in a restaurant will get spilled. Logically, you would either serve it diluted to 0.1 M instead, and then keep an open can of baking soda within easy reach, or you would sock something away for the victims' compensation fund every time you sold a cup. Everything spills in a restaurant. Everything. No exceptions. You absolutely cannot predicate your business strategy on the assumption that one particular thing will never get spilled on a customer. Every engineer knows Murphy's Law, and every last one could have predicted that serving 190 degF coffee will produce a nonzero quantity of hospitalizations. Brew at whatever temperature you need. But don't let any human near it until the liquid cools to a safer temperature.
- bb88 10y ago
  Here's the outline of the argument. 1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns. 2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu. 3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it. You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it. But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
- bb88 10y ago
  Here's the outline of the argument. 1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns. 2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu. 3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it. You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it. But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  > we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the machine to my desk, to poke a finger into it without being burned (momentary exposure is uncomfortable, but doesn't result in injury). Consulting a burn chart [1], I've got to assume that it's a temperature somewhat under 160 degrees by that time. From a coworker's experience, at that point you can dump it on yourself and end up with 1st and 2nd degree burns, rather than the 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee. Still, by any reasonable measure, the coffee is certainly "hot". The problem here isn't accuracy, it's precision. "Hot" might mean > 100F/38C. Or it might mean > 200F/93C. If a temperature isn't specified, you're likely to make a judgement based on the past experiences that inform your intuition. It follows that a company selling a product, without providing more precise information about its properties, should provide it in a state that matches a reasonable customer's intuition of what they're buying. I don't think that's an unsettling concept. I think it's one that most people would take as a given. [1] https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves/pdfs/ay-699.pdf https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves...
user5994461 10y ago
I have never seen a coffee served drinkable in my life.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  On the other hand, I've never seen a coffee served that was so hot as to be undrinkable within 5 minutes. A 190 degree cup of coffee is much hotter than I would expect, based on past experience.

mc32 10y ago

Ok, so are office Mr Coffees at work serving me coffee the wrong way? Should they serve coffee at lower temps? Or if I use a percolator.... So I agree McD was callous and unsympathetic. I also think they should have looked after their customer... But I still find the argument that McDs was at fault a bit unsettling because we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. It's not something you gulp down. It gets sipped for a reason.

gamblor956 10y ago
What you're not understanding is that the Mr. Coffee's and percolators you are using are not serving you coffee that is as hot as McDonald's was at the time of the lawsuit. The coffee scalded the woman instantly--she would have been injured whether it spilled on her or she tried to drink it. Indeed, at the levels served, she could have suffered far worse injuries if she had just tried to drink it, from the coffee scalding her throat and trachea. Companies changed their behavior after the lawsuit. Now they serve coffee hot, but not scaldingly hot.
raisedbyninjas 10y ago
A Keurig brews at 192 degrees by default. After dispensing into a room temperature mug, it can fall 10-15 degrees. McDonald's served theirs at 190. 15 degrees may not sound like a lot, but it means the difference in 3rd degree burns is a few seconds vs. 10s of seconds.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  When you're up above 80 degC, the difference between 2nd-degree and 3rd-degree burns is measured in tenths of a second. Granted, liquids don't stay that hot for long without a vacuum insulated vessel, but common sense says that you should not serve anything in a restaurant that can cause permanent disfigurement after a spill faster than the victim can possibly react to the situation. You might as well serve cups of 10 M HCl. It doesn't matter how well you label it as "CAUTION! Strong acid! Do not ingest or touch!" because eventually, everything in a restaurant will get spilled. Logically, you would either serve it diluted to 0.1 M instead, and then keep an open can of baking soda within easy reach, or you would sock something away for the victims' compensation fund every time you sold a cup. Everything spills in a restaurant. Everything. No exceptions. You absolutely cannot predicate your business strategy on the assumption that one particular thing will never get spilled on a customer. Every engineer knows Murphy's Law, and every last one could have predicted that serving 190 degF coffee will produce a nonzero quantity of hospitalizations. Brew at whatever temperature you need. But don't let any human near it until the liquid cools to a safer temperature.
bb88 10y ago
Here's the outline of the argument. 1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns. 2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu. 3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it. You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it. But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
bb88 10y ago
Here's the outline of the argument. 1. McDonald's knew or should have know that their temperature could cause third degree burns. 2. McDonald's received complaints and did nothing. They did not even put a warning label on the menu. 3. Because there was no warning label, plaintiff did not know she could receive serious injury which may have impacted her decision to not buy it. You can make the argument that just because there was a warning label doesn't mean she would have read it. But on the contrary, if the warning label is not there, she has no chance to read it.
khedoros1 10y ago
> we all know that coffee is intrinsically hot. I know that the coffee I come into contact with on a daily basis is cool enough, in a 2-minute walk from the machine to my desk, to poke a finger into it without being burned (momentary exposure is uncomfortable, but doesn't result in injury). Consulting a burn chart [1], I've got to assume that it's a temperature somewhat under 160 degrees by that time. From a coworker's experience, at that point you can dump it on yourself and end up with 1st and 2nd degree burns, rather than the 3rd degree burns from McDonald's coffee. Still, by any reasonable measure, the coffee is certainly "hot". The problem here isn't accuracy, it's precision. "Hot" might mean > 100F/38C. Or it might mean > 200F/93C. If a temperature isn't specified, you're likely to make a judgement based on the past experiences that inform your intuition. It follows that a company selling a product, without providing more precise information about its properties, should provide it in a state that matches a reasonable customer's intuition of what they're buying. I don't think that's an unsettling concept. I think it's one that most people would take as a given. [1] https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves/pdfs/ay-699.pdf https://www.armstronginternational.com/files/products/valves...

user5994461 10y ago

I have never seen a coffee served drinkable in my life.

khedoros1 10y ago
On the other hand, I've never seen a coffee served that was so hot as to be undrinkable within 5 minutes. A 190 degree cup of coffee is much hotter than I would expect, based on past experience.