5 ms·

> (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 co

> (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.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)." That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
    - the8472 9y ago
      > That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS) This is what I think I did. > but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured) Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual. Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
      - Mz 9y ago
        What I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case." You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me. And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
  - 9y ago

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.
- Mz 9y ago
  Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)." That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
  - the8472 9y ago
    > That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS) This is what I think I did. > but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured) Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual. Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
    - Mz 9y ago
      What I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case." You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me. And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
- 9y ago