3 ms·
"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 o
by 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 agoMcdonalds 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.