5 ms·

Because they had multiple warnings that the near boiling coffee was likely to cause severe burns but didn't heed them cause it meant less refills from people di

Because they had multiple warnings that the near boiling coffee was likely to cause severe burns but didn't heed them cause it meant less refills from people dining in. From the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[15] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. I'd highly recommend looking up details of the case if you think it was frivolous.

giantg2 5y ago
First, I never said it was frivolous. I asked a question. It seems the temperature of the coffee is the reason. The other stuff you mentioned are outcomes and don't necessarily speak to the culpability portion that I was questioning.
- s5300 5y ago
  Probably not the best tl:dr, but - It quite literally burnt/melted part of her vagina onto her leg/part of body that was not her vagina. I think pictures are out there if you google for them, it’s been quite a while but IIRC pretty gruesome.
- willis936 5y ago
  Asking "Is this not so?" and then saying you were not implying it is a betrayal of the cooperative principle, in the most generous of interpretations.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I guess that wording does evoke a negative reaction that I didn't mean to imply.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  It was because they were warned about it multiple times before. The government tends to react poorly if you ignore their warnings.
  - KarlKemp 5y ago
    „The government“ played no part in this.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      The judicial branch of government is part of the government.
- panda-giddiness 5y ago
  > It seems the temperature of the coffee is the reason. Well, yes and no. The temperature of the coffee was only partially the reason. What made McDonald's actions appear malicious rather than accidental (therefore increasing their culpability) was the fact that McDonald's knew the coffee was too hot but continued to serve it anyway.
  - Veen 5y ago
    I've never really understood this. Too hot for what? That's the temperature I brew my coffee at and it's the temperature I expect coffee to be when I buy it. Of course it's "too hot" to douse your crotch with, but McDonalds probably assumed its customers knew to take care with a hot beverage.
robonerd 5y ago
Also from wikipedia: > Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[37][38] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[38] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). So according to this page you've linked, the coffee was not unusually hot and McDonalds and Starbucks are presently serving coffee just as hot that could give you 3rd degree burns today. (Since people in this thread seem so jumpy, let me explicitly disclaim that I think the lawsuit and outcome were warranted because she was severely burned as a consequence of McDonald's defective cup design.)
noasaservice 5y ago
I seem to remember as well that the coffee was reported as instantly boiling when sugar was added. If that's the case (and no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff), that's a superheated liquid. In other words, it is a liquid above its own boiling point and waiting for a cavitation event (something for bubbles to hold on to) to instantly boil. And this seems to coincide with the coffee explosion and burns from the plantiff. Mythbusters video of an example of superheated water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Its doubtful that the liquid was superheated. More likely is that air was trapped in the sugar and was released on rapid dissolution

giantg2 5y ago

First, I never said it was frivolous. I asked a question. It seems the temperature of the coffee is the reason. The other stuff you mentioned are outcomes and don't necessarily speak to the culpability portion that I was questioning.

s5300 5y ago
Probably not the best tl:dr, but - It quite literally burnt/melted part of her vagina onto her leg/part of body that was not her vagina. I think pictures are out there if you google for them, it’s been quite a while but IIRC pretty gruesome.
willis936 5y ago
Asking "Is this not so?" and then saying you were not implying it is a betrayal of the cooperative principle, in the most generous of interpretations.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I guess that wording does evoke a negative reaction that I didn't mean to imply.
bcrosby95 5y ago
It was because they were warned about it multiple times before. The government tends to react poorly if you ignore their warnings.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  „The government“ played no part in this.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    The judicial branch of government is part of the government.
panda-giddiness 5y ago
> It seems the temperature of the coffee is the reason. Well, yes and no. The temperature of the coffee was only partially the reason. What made McDonald's actions appear malicious rather than accidental (therefore increasing their culpability) was the fact that McDonald's knew the coffee was too hot but continued to serve it anyway.
- Veen 5y ago
  I've never really understood this. Too hot for what? That's the temperature I brew my coffee at and it's the temperature I expect coffee to be when I buy it. Of course it's "too hot" to douse your crotch with, but McDonalds probably assumed its customers knew to take care with a hot beverage.

robonerd 5y ago

Also from wikipedia: > Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[37] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[37][38] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[38] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). So according to this page you've linked, the coffee was not unusually hot and McDonalds and Starbucks are presently serving coffee just as hot that could give you 3rd degree burns today. (Since people in this thread seem so jumpy, let me explicitly disclaim that I think the lawsuit and outcome were warranted because she was severely burned as a consequence of McDonald's defective cup design.)

noasaservice 5y ago

I seem to remember as well that the coffee was reported as instantly boiling when sugar was added. If that's the case (and no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff), that's a superheated liquid. In other words, it is a liquid above its own boiling point and waiting for a cavitation event (something for bubbles to hold on to) to instantly boil. And this seems to coincide with the coffee explosion and burns from the plantiff. Mythbusters video of an example of superheated water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0

netizen-936824 5y ago
Its doubtful that the liquid was superheated. More likely is that air was trapped in the sugar and was released on rapid dissolution