5 ms·

Yeah, I've found that generally to be the case with superficially ridiculous sounding cases. Google the details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding l

by api 9y ago

Yeah, I've found that generally to be the case with superficially ridiculous sounding cases. Google the details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. It wasn't just hot coffee. It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee that caused serious third degree burns. This girl sounds like a psychopath. Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind.

the8472 9y ago
> It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  My right arm disagrees. Superheated distilled water will stay superheated and liquid long enough to get you nicely roasted depending on how much water is spilled and what it lands on. Even ordinary water will do this if the cup it is in is smooth enough and the water pure enough (not sure how that would work with coffee). That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
  - the8472 9y ago
    > (not sure how that would work with coffee) Yes, I assumed that a paper cup and coffee solids will provide nucleation points. And the incident was about a coffee spill, not a flash boiling of superheated liquid. > During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). This is clearly not superheated liquid.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      No, but it clearly is third degree burn territory. http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa... And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity. The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.
      - qb45 9y ago
        A good argument against mandatory seatbelts. You shouldn't need them in a drive-through.
    - Mz 9y ago
      I actually looked that case up at some point. She was wearing some kind of pants of synthetic material which melted into her lap. She was quite elderly, so she moved slowly anyway, and was in a public space. The only way she could have avoided this becoming a serious burn would have been to promptly leap up and whip her pants off right then and there for all the world to see. Now, I have done something like that in front of medical personnel in an ER, pulling my pants off when I realized they were the source of the exposure that was causing my throat to close up. Even I would probably hesitate to do so in the middle of a McDonald's knowing that I would likely be charged with something for suddenly getting naked in public. If the maneuver was successful in protecting against burns, good luck convincing people that you had to get naked to prevent being maimed. This woman WAS maimed and her case still gets dismissed in internet comments left and right, like yours.
      - the8472 9y ago
        > like yours I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.
txru 9y ago
I can't make this less disturbing with any gender permutation.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
>Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind. Or watch the 80's movie Heathers
abandonliberty 9y ago
>details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. Yes, the burns were serious. Educators have latched on to this example to argue that it wasn't frivolous. >The Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) recommends a range of 175° to 180°F (80° - 85°C) for holding and a serving temperature range of 155° to 175°F (70° - 80°C). McDonalds was holding their coffee at 180-190, just slightly hotter. You're getting a beverage produced by pouring near-boiling water over coffee beans. It's going to be dangerous. Maybe don't order it at a drive-through.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > Maybe don't order it at a drive-through. Maybe don't sell it at a drive through.
  - abandonliberty 9y ago
    Yes, let's stop selling knives while we're at it.
    - chris_wot 9y ago
      No, not the same at all. Selling knives comes with the knowledge there is a certain amount of known danger - selling hot coffee at the temperature McDonalds served back then wasn't generally known it could cause such burns by the general public. The case was remarkable in part because McDonalds knew that a certain percentage of customers would be severely injured, they worked out the percentages and assumed it would be ok. McDonalds in fact at the time required coffee to be served at 188-90 degrees F (88 degrees C), which will scald in 3-5 seconds; most coffee shops serve it at 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) which increases burn time to 20 seconds. In fact, the attorneys found that McDonalds knew about this problem already and over 500 people had been scalded already; they had paid out $500,000 in the year of the case alone.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > Maybe don't order it at a drive-through. If I recall things correctly, the woman who was burned was older, with thinner skin in the region where she was burned. Furthermore, the cup the coffee was served in was, at the time, made of styrofoam. To say they are a bit pliable without a lid is an understatement. So the woman was served the hot coffee in a pliable cup, with a lid - which gave it a margin of structural integrity. Then, doing something she had likely done many times before, she wanted to take the lid off of the cup. Why? I don't honestly know, but likely to add some cream or sugar would be my guess. Apparently though, she needed both hands for this, and did what she likely did in the past: She placed the coffee between her legs, likely to grip it, so she could remove the lid. At which point, the cup collapsed (because it was now a pliable styrofoam cup without a lid, so its structural integrity was lost), spilling the hot contents on her legs and other nearby regions, and burning her severely. This is what I recall from the case and time period. This write-up appears to support that recollection: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts Apparently, based on the above, she was also wearing sweatpants (known for absorbing liquid, as they are designed for this), and was a passenger in the vehicle (so was likely handed the cup by the driver passing it over).
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576705 and marked it off-topic.

by api 9y ago

the8472 9y ago

> It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.

jacquesm 9y ago
My right arm disagrees. Superheated distilled water will stay superheated and liquid long enough to get you nicely roasted depending on how much water is spilled and what it lands on. Even ordinary water will do this if the cup it is in is smooth enough and the water pure enough (not sure how that would work with coffee). That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
- the8472 9y ago
  > (not sure how that would work with coffee) Yes, I assumed that a paper cup and coffee solids will provide nucleation points. And the incident was about a coffee spill, not a flash boiling of superheated liquid. > During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). This is clearly not superheated liquid.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, but it clearly is third degree burn territory. http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa... And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity. The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.
    - qb45 9y ago
      A good argument against mandatory seatbelts. You shouldn't need them in a drive-through.
  - Mz 9y ago
    I actually looked that case up at some point. She was wearing some kind of pants of synthetic material which melted into her lap. She was quite elderly, so she moved slowly anyway, and was in a public space. The only way she could have avoided this becoming a serious burn would have been to promptly leap up and whip her pants off right then and there for all the world to see. Now, I have done something like that in front of medical personnel in an ER, pulling my pants off when I realized they were the source of the exposure that was causing my throat to close up. Even I would probably hesitate to do so in the middle of a McDonald's knowing that I would likely be charged with something for suddenly getting naked in public. If the maneuver was successful in protecting against burns, good luck convincing people that you had to get naked to prevent being maimed. This woman WAS maimed and her case still gets dismissed in internet comments left and right, like yours.
    - the8472 9y ago
      > like yours I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.

txru 9y ago

I can't make this less disturbing with any gender permutation.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

>Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind. Or watch the 80's movie Heathers

abandonliberty 9y ago

>details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. Yes, the burns were serious. Educators have latched on to this example to argue that it wasn't frivolous. >The Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) recommends a range of 175° to 180°F (80° - 85°C) for holding and a serving temperature range of 155° to 175°F (70° - 80°C). McDonalds was holding their coffee at 180-190, just slightly hotter. You're getting a beverage produced by pouring near-boiling water over coffee beans. It's going to be dangerous. Maybe don't order it at a drive-through.

DanBC 9y ago
> Maybe don't order it at a drive-through. Maybe don't sell it at a drive through.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Yes, let's stop selling knives while we're at it.
  - chris_wot 9y ago
    No, not the same at all. Selling knives comes with the knowledge there is a certain amount of known danger - selling hot coffee at the temperature McDonalds served back then wasn't generally known it could cause such burns by the general public. The case was remarkable in part because McDonalds knew that a certain percentage of customers would be severely injured, they worked out the percentages and assumed it would be ok. McDonalds in fact at the time required coffee to be served at 188-90 degrees F (88 degrees C), which will scald in 3-5 seconds; most coffee shops serve it at 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) which increases burn time to 20 seconds. In fact, the attorneys found that McDonalds knew about this problem already and over 500 people had been scalded already; they had paid out $500,000 in the year of the case alone.
cr0sh 9y ago
> Maybe don't order it at a drive-through. If I recall things correctly, the woman who was burned was older, with thinner skin in the region where she was burned. Furthermore, the cup the coffee was served in was, at the time, made of styrofoam. To say they are a bit pliable without a lid is an understatement. So the woman was served the hot coffee in a pliable cup, with a lid - which gave it a margin of structural integrity. Then, doing something she had likely done many times before, she wanted to take the lid off of the cup. Why? I don't honestly know, but likely to add some cream or sugar would be my guess. Apparently though, she needed both hands for this, and did what she likely did in the past: She placed the coffee between her legs, likely to grip it, so she could remove the lid. At which point, the cup collapsed (because it was now a pliable styrofoam cup without a lid, so its structural integrity was lost), spilling the hot contents on her legs and other nearby regions, and burning her severely. This is what I recall from the case and time period. This write-up appears to support that recollection: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts Apparently, based on the above, she was also wearing sweatpants (known for absorbing liquid, as they are designed for this), and was a passenger in the vehicle (so was likely handed the cup by the driver passing it over).

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576705 and marked it off-topic.