4 ms·

I realize we're on a tangent now, but I can't let that stand unchallenged. Mcdonalds' brewing/holding temperature was the recommended temperature for coffee by

I realize we're on a tangent now, but I can't let that stand unchallenged. Mcdonalds' brewing/holding temperature was the recommended temperature for coffee by the the NCA, a coffee industry group, not to mention any number of enthusiasts. This is between 195F and 205F for brewing, and holding around 170-190F. A quick google search confirms this. ~195ish is also where home drip brewers are set. McDonalds' temperatures were not unreasonable or outside the norm. Most adults will sustain third degree burns with contact of 150F water for two seconds, a full 45 degrees lower. It is not reasonable to expect coffee to be brewed and held even at that temperature, let alone below it. Furthermore, Liebeck's burns and their location were sustained entirely because she put a styrofoam container (i.e. something easily crushed) between her legs to add cream&sugar outside the store - and then, sure enough, she crushed it. Given the absurd volume of coffee that they were selling even back then, which was brewed at identical temperatures, and did not result in any injury (on the orders of multiple millions of cups per day), I chalk this one up to 100% user error, judge be damned. The severity of her injuries do not even factor into the question of who was at fault. Coffee brewed correctly is extremely hot out of the serving container, and should be treated with appropriate care - including not putting it in a position where you can dump it on yourself. This case is a study in how emotional manipulation (poor old lady vs multinational corporation) works on the justice system. Mcdonalds would have done well to just pay her medical bills, even though they didn't actually do anything wrong or irresponsible, and be done with it.

rayiner 10y ago
NCA's recommendation applies to a wholly different context and ignores relevant considerations of the instant situation. You're trying to apply a single-criterion optimization function to a problem that calls for multi-criterion optimization function. Here, we are not merely talking about brewing coffee. We are talking about a business model based on brewing coffee and then serving it to customers in "easily crushed" containers who are driving in their cars. Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation. The temperature at which the flavors and oils that make up coffee are optimally extracted from ground beans does not change based on the business model of the people selling it.
  - sithadmin 10y ago
    That's true, but the fact that there is an approximate ideal water temperature for coffee brewing has no bearing on what appropriate storage and serving temperatures might be.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Assume for a minute that they were holding at 170F (chosen because it's a middle ground between 160 and 180, common hot beverage holding temps from [1]). Even at that lower temperature, Stella would still have sustained third degree burns in under one second [2]. Even if you're generous and take 20 degrees off to account for cooling between the time of pouring and the time of spilling, that's only one extra second's difference to get second/third degree burned. Given that her burns were exacerbated by her clothing trapping the hot liquid next to her skin, that isn't enough to have made a difference in the outcome. The conclusion is clear. Any reasonable hot holding temperature will result in serious burns if you get the liquid on you soon after purchase. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 2: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_w...
      - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
        That's presumably why the jury found her partially at fault. However, increasing the temperature above that greatly increases the severity of the burns, which is why McDonald's was also partially at fault because they served the coffee at a higher temperature so her burns were more severe than they would have been if it had been served at a normal temperature.
cgriswald 10y ago
Your facts are wrong: > Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. > Always allow your coffee - or any hot beverage - to reach a comfortable temperature before enjoying (specifically below 140 degrees Fahrenheit).*[0] There's the NCA recommendation. Brew temperature != serving temperature. Additionally, McDonald's coffee at the time was served at 180-190˚F. [0] - http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee
- Karunamon 10y ago
  The temperature at which it should be drank is not equivalent to the temperature it which it should be held.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  That says enjoying, not serving. If you're getting coffee to go, to be enjoyed later, it can't be served at the joy temperature.
dhimes 10y ago
From the NCA site: "Always allow your coffee - or any hot beverage - to reach a comfortable temperature before enjoying (specifically below 140 degrees Fahrenheit)." Maybe serving temperature isn't the same as brewing temperature? I remember (vaguely) that there was a lot more to the story than was released publicly because as part of the settlement McDs got the plaintiff to shut up. But somebody else who was there (son in law?) wasn't under a gag order and spill the beans, as it were. Apparently McDs had been warned several times about the coffee being too hot, and, IIRC, ignored court orders to turn it down. Now I've seen people talk about drinking beverages hotter than 175 deg F being implicated in cancer of the esophagus. Drinking liquids at that temperature is painful. Besides, McDs coffee tasted like shit in those days (IMO).
kenjackson 10y ago
My understanding is that she was not driving. She had pulled over. Just wanting to clarify...
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Her grandson was operating the car, and the car did not have cup holders. The car was not in motion at the time, her son pulled over so she could add cream and sugar. McDonalds claimed to serve coffee too hot for human consumption because they thought most of their customers were commuters who weren't going to consume the coffee until they got to their destination. The jury found Stella 20% at fault. I think its important to note, back then McDonald's coffee cups were much more fragile then they are now. Specifically, this is the exact cup - http://www.idonotwanttobeyourlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/McDonalds-Coffee.jpg http://www.idonotwanttobeyourlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Now they look like this - https://i0.wp.com/vifreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mcdonaldscoffee_fullsize_story1.jpg?fit=800%2C600 https://i0.wp.com/vifreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11... I think that's really one of the biggest safety improvements since the case. Personally, I really hate it when I get hot coffee, I don't want to burn my tongue off and I don't want to wait 20 minutes.
squeaky-clean 10y ago
> A quick google search confirms this. ~195ish is also where home drip brewers are set. And McDonald's cooks their french fries at 375F, it doesn't mean they give them to you while they're that hot.
usefulcat 10y ago
"Given the absurd volume of coffee that they were selling even back then, which was brewed at identical temperatures, and did not result in any injury (on the orders of multiple millions of cups per day), I chalk this one up to 100% user error, judge be damned." Nope. From wikipedia, citing the WSJ: "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Mcdonalds claims to sell 2.5M cups of coffee per day - ten years of sales at that rate would be 9.1 billion cups. 700 reports works out to a 0.000007671232876712329 percent chance. Even with generous fudge factors for daily cups sold, 700 incidents over 9.1 billon servings is nothing. It's a 1 in 13 million chance. To put that into perspective, your lifetime chance of being struck by lightning twice is 1 in 9 million. So yes, I'm still going with user error. People can be dumb.
  - megablast 10y ago
    > It's a 1 in 13 million chance. Every time you have a coffee though, right? if you get a couple of cups a day, that is now 1 in 17,800.
st3v3r 10y ago
It IS, however, reasonable to expect McDonald's, knowing the temperatures at which they serve coffee, to do so in a vessel that can withstand the heat. And actually they had plenty of complaints of injury on their coffee. It just happened that none involved scalding someone's genitals off.

rayiner 10y ago

NCA's recommendation applies to a wholly different context and ignores relevant considerations of the instant situation. You're trying to apply a single-criterion optimization function to a problem that calls for multi-criterion optimization function. Here, we are not merely talking about brewing coffee. We are talking about a business model based on brewing coffee and then serving it to customers in "easily crushed" containers who are driving in their cars. Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation.

Karunamon 10y ago
Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation. The temperature at which the flavors and oils that make up coffee are optimally extracted from ground beans does not change based on the business model of the people selling it.
- sithadmin 10y ago
  That's true, but the fact that there is an approximate ideal water temperature for coffee brewing has no bearing on what appropriate storage and serving temperatures might be.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Assume for a minute that they were holding at 170F (chosen because it's a middle ground between 160 and 180, common hot beverage holding temps from [1]). Even at that lower temperature, Stella would still have sustained third degree burns in under one second [2]. Even if you're generous and take 20 degrees off to account for cooling between the time of pouring and the time of spilling, that's only one extra second's difference to get second/third degree burned. Given that her burns were exacerbated by her clothing trapping the hot liquid next to her skin, that isn't enough to have made a difference in the outcome. The conclusion is clear. Any reasonable hot holding temperature will result in serious burns if you get the liquid on you soon after purchase. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 2: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_w...
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      That's presumably why the jury found her partially at fault. However, increasing the temperature above that greatly increases the severity of the burns, which is why McDonald's was also partially at fault because they served the coffee at a higher temperature so her burns were more severe than they would have been if it had been served at a normal temperature.

cgriswald 10y ago

Your facts are wrong: > Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. > Always allow your coffee - or any hot beverage - to reach a comfortable temperature before enjoying (specifically below 140 degrees Fahrenheit).*[0] There's the NCA recommendation. Brew temperature != serving temperature. Additionally, McDonald's coffee at the time was served at 180-190˚F. [0] - http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

Karunamon 10y ago
The temperature at which it should be drank is not equivalent to the temperature it which it should be held.
tedunangst 10y ago
That says enjoying, not serving. If you're getting coffee to go, to be enjoyed later, it can't be served at the joy temperature.

dhimes 10y ago

From the NCA site: "Always allow your coffee - or any hot beverage - to reach a comfortable temperature before enjoying (specifically below 140 degrees Fahrenheit)." Maybe serving temperature isn't the same as brewing temperature? I remember (vaguely) that there was a lot more to the story than was released publicly because as part of the settlement McDs got the plaintiff to shut up. But somebody else who was there (son in law?) wasn't under a gag order and spill the beans, as it were. Apparently McDs had been warned several times about the coffee being too hot, and, IIRC, ignored court orders to turn it down. Now I've seen people talk about drinking beverages hotter than 175 deg F being implicated in cancer of the esophagus. Drinking liquids at that temperature is painful. Besides, McDs coffee tasted like shit in those days (IMO).

kenjackson 10y ago

My understanding is that she was not driving. She had pulled over. Just wanting to clarify...

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Her grandson was operating the car, and the car did not have cup holders. The car was not in motion at the time, her son pulled over so she could add cream and sugar. McDonalds claimed to serve coffee too hot for human consumption because they thought most of their customers were commuters who weren't going to consume the coffee until they got to their destination. The jury found Stella 20% at fault. I think its important to note, back then McDonald's coffee cups were much more fragile then they are now. Specifically, this is the exact cup - http://www.idonotwanttobeyourlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/McDonalds-Coffee.jpg http://www.idonotwanttobeyourlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2... Now they look like this - https://i0.wp.com/vifreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mcdonaldscoffee_fullsize_story1.jpg?fit=800%2C600 https://i0.wp.com/vifreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11... I think that's really one of the biggest safety improvements since the case. Personally, I really hate it when I get hot coffee, I don't want to burn my tongue off and I don't want to wait 20 minutes.

squeaky-clean 10y ago

> A quick google search confirms this. ~195ish is also where home drip brewers are set. And McDonald's cooks their french fries at 375F, it doesn't mean they give them to you while they're that hot.

usefulcat 10y ago

"Given the absurd volume of coffee that they were selling even back then, which was brewed at identical temperatures, and did not result in any injury (on the orders of multiple millions of cups per day), I chalk this one up to 100% user error, judge be damned." Nope. From wikipedia, citing the WSJ: "Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

Karunamon 10y ago
Mcdonalds claims to sell 2.5M cups of coffee per day - ten years of sales at that rate would be 9.1 billion cups. 700 reports works out to a 0.000007671232876712329 percent chance. Even with generous fudge factors for daily cups sold, 700 incidents over 9.1 billon servings is nothing. It's a 1 in 13 million chance. To put that into perspective, your lifetime chance of being struck by lightning twice is 1 in 9 million. So yes, I'm still going with user error. People can be dumb.
- megablast 10y ago
  > It's a 1 in 13 million chance. Every time you have a coffee though, right? if you get a couple of cups a day, that is now 1 in 17,800.

st3v3r 10y ago

It IS, however, reasonable to expect McDonald's, knowing the temperatures at which they serve coffee, to do so in a vessel that can withstand the heat. And actually they had plenty of complaints of injury on their coffee. It just happened that none involved scalding someone's genitals off.