4 ms·

I guess "the dangerously hot coffee that fused a customer's labia" does not have the same punch when trying to argue for tort reform.

logdap 3y ago
That's a myth within a myth. The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) The lawsuit was justified though, because the cup design was defective. It shouldn't have collapsed like it did.
- fishtoaster 3y ago
  That doesn't seem to match what's in wikipedia: > Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. Reading through wikipedia's discussion of the trial and verdict, it sounds like the case hinged entirely on the temperature of the coffee being unusually high, and not the cup design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    It's strange that despite the research showing that most customers intend to consume the coffee immediately and despite this lawsuit and, apparently, others, McDonald's and other establishments continue to serve coffee at such a high temperature. Every time I buy a hot drink (admittedly, not that often) I can't actually drink it for several minutes.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Of course the plaintiffs attorney argued coffee should be lower temperature - it literally was their case. And no, there is no coffee professional (organization, individual, whatever) brewing coffee at 140*F. Additionally - 140*F water is still going to burn if you spill it all over your clothing. Lastly, the customer removed the lid of the coffee while between her legs, which is how the cup was crushed and coffee ran all over her. The case was absurd...
    - clucas 3y ago
      The issue was the temperature it was served at, not the temperature it was brewed at...
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Nobody is saying the coffee should be brewed at a lower temperature.
      - Talanes 3y ago
        That's not an industry standard either though. With a lot of equipment it would be technically impossible, because the pre-heated brew water is what's keeping the standing coffee hot.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      The case was not absurd. Even if you think they should be fine to serve it at such a high temperature, she just wanted them to pay $20,000 for her medical bills, but McDonald's used it as a way to cast absurdity onto supposed tort abuse and it worked with most of the population still saying things like "you can even sue someone if you spill your own coffee".
      - zizee 3y ago
        > it worked with most of the population still saying things like "you can even sue someone if you spill your own coffee". I don't understand how what you wrote gels with the grandparents comment of: > Lastly, the customer removed the lid of the coffee while between her legs, which is how the cup was crushed and coffee ran all over her.
  - logdap 3y ago
    You stopped reading too soon: > 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) [...] 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).[citation needed] Any of this coffee can give you life changing injuries. That's why it is important that it be served in sturdy cups with safety warnings.
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) Which is probably too hot. See "A Review of Hot Beverage Temperatures—Satisfying Consumer Preference and Safety": * https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.14699 https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-38...
  - tjoff 3y ago
    Why? All this debate on how hot you like to drink your coffee etc. is completely irrelevant. You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee. If someone serves me coffee at the perfect consumption temperature I'm going to be annoyed that it is way too cold and it is for sure going to be disgustingly cold at the time I actually consume it. The correct temperature is supposed to be way too warm for consumption. Then you can sip at it while it is still too warm to drink comfortably while you "wait" until it is at your preferred consumption temperature (which varies wildly due to personal preference).
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      > You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee. The same article says McDonald's own research showed the opposite.
      - tjoff 3y ago
        What article? Seems quite unlikely given that it apparently is too hot to do the opposite anyway.
        emodendroket 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... > McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[12] However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[22]
- roflyear 3y ago
  Well, whatever the case - the coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns. Why would anyone think it is OK to serve a drink so hot that it can cause severe burns?
  - SilasX 3y ago
    Do you apply this standard to tea, which is generally prepared and served much hotter than 140 F (with the understanding that you wait until it cools down to drink)? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/tea/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/t...
    - roflyear 3y ago
      yes
      - SilasX 3y ago
        Oh. Cool, I didn't think that reductio was going to be that easy!
        roflyear 3y ago
        In any case, here's the facts: when I make coffee at home, it is brewed at 200ish F. That is true. When I make tea tho it's like 170ishf. By the time I am ready to consume (post brewing) both are still not, but consumable, so I think it is safe to say that they won't burn me, at least very badly, if spilled on me.
        SilasX 3y ago
        And if you served them to a guest, right after preparing for yourself, it will be before it’s cooled down enough to drink. That doesn’t make it your fault if they spill it on themselves and fuse their labia. And it doesn’t make the grossness of the accident into prima facia evidence of the culpability of any one party up the line, as it’s always presented in these discussions.
Alupis 3y ago
For reference, your Keurig pours coffee into your cup at 192*F. McDonald's coffee wasn't even this hot when that lawsuit happen. Additionally - the detail often left out of all the armchair analysis is the customer placed the fresh cup of coffee between her legs while in her car, and removed the lid. Her legs crushed the now-unstable cup... and she was unsurprisingly burned.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Yes, the kitchen has many hazards that are not expected in a drive-through restaurant, and your point about how she held the coffee is presumably why the jury found the plaintiff 20% liable rather than 0%.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Yes, and now the "Caution - Hot" markings on the cup keep us all much, much safer. Any temperature above 100*F is going to burn. There is no safe temperature above 100*F that is not going to cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      The warning was made more prominent and, probably more importantly, they switched to rigid styrofoam cups that are less likely to buckle as happened in that incident. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article shared in the thread elsewhere details how such burns take substantially more contact with skin to happen if the coffee is not served so hot.
    - Raidion 3y ago
      I think I agree with you on principle, but temps higher than 100 are totally fine in a lot of cases. Hot tubs are at 102-106. 120°F takes you like 10 minutes to suffer serious burns. But 140° will cause burns in seconds. I've seen cooks handle stuff waaay hotter than 140 for a half secondish (grab a noodle from a pot of boiling water, poke a 160+° burger on a grill, etc). Obviously makes a big difference if you splash yourself a bit vs get a whole cup on you too.
pxmpxm 3y ago
Found the litigator...
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I am not now nor have I ever been a lawyer.

logdap 3y ago

That's a myth within a myth. The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) The lawsuit was justified though, because the cup design was defective. It shouldn't have collapsed like it did.

fishtoaster 3y ago
That doesn't seem to match what's in wikipedia: > Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. Reading through wikipedia's discussion of the trial and verdict, it sounds like the case hinged entirely on the temperature of the coffee being unusually high, and not the cup design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
- emodendroket 3y ago
  It's strange that despite the research showing that most customers intend to consume the coffee immediately and despite this lawsuit and, apparently, others, McDonald's and other establishments continue to serve coffee at such a high temperature. Every time I buy a hot drink (admittedly, not that often) I can't actually drink it for several minutes.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Of course the plaintiffs attorney argued coffee should be lower temperature - it literally was their case. And no, there is no coffee professional (organization, individual, whatever) brewing coffee at 140*F. Additionally - 140*F water is still going to burn if you spill it all over your clothing. Lastly, the customer removed the lid of the coffee while between her legs, which is how the cup was crushed and coffee ran all over her. The case was absurd...
  - clucas 3y ago
    The issue was the temperature it was served at, not the temperature it was brewed at...
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Nobody is saying the coffee should be brewed at a lower temperature.
    - Talanes 3y ago
      That's not an industry standard either though. With a lot of equipment it would be technically impossible, because the pre-heated brew water is what's keeping the standing coffee hot.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    The case was not absurd. Even if you think they should be fine to serve it at such a high temperature, she just wanted them to pay $20,000 for her medical bills, but McDonald's used it as a way to cast absurdity onto supposed tort abuse and it worked with most of the population still saying things like "you can even sue someone if you spill your own coffee".
    - zizee 3y ago
      > it worked with most of the population still saying things like "you can even sue someone if you spill your own coffee". I don't understand how what you wrote gels with the grandparents comment of: > Lastly, the customer removed the lid of the coffee while between her legs, which is how the cup was crushed and coffee ran all over her.
- logdap 3y ago
  You stopped reading too soon: > 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) [...] 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).[citation needed] Any of this coffee can give you life changing injuries. That's why it is important that it be served in sturdy cups with safety warnings.
throw0101c 3y ago
> The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) Which is probably too hot. See "A Review of Hot Beverage Temperatures—Satisfying Consumer Preference and Safety": * https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-3841.14699 https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1750-38...
- tjoff 3y ago
  Why? All this debate on how hot you like to drink your coffee etc. is completely irrelevant. You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee. If someone serves me coffee at the perfect consumption temperature I'm going to be annoyed that it is way too cold and it is for sure going to be disgustingly cold at the time I actually consume it. The correct temperature is supposed to be way too warm for consumption. Then you can sip at it while it is still too warm to drink comfortably while you "wait" until it is at your preferred consumption temperature (which varies wildly due to personal preference).
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    > You don't chug your coffee on your way from the counter. You probably have some other items that you consume before you even start sipping on the coffee. The same article says McDonald's own research showed the opposite.
    - tjoff 3y ago
      What article? Seems quite unlikely given that it apparently is too hot to do the opposite anyway.
      - emodendroket 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest... > McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[12] However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[22]
roflyear 3y ago
Well, whatever the case - the coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns. Why would anyone think it is OK to serve a drink so hot that it can cause severe burns?
- SilasX 3y ago
  Do you apply this standard to tea, which is generally prepared and served much hotter than 140 F (with the understanding that you wait until it cools down to drink)? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/tea/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/t...
  - roflyear 3y ago
    yes
    - SilasX 3y ago
      Oh. Cool, I didn't think that reductio was going to be that easy!
      - roflyear 3y ago
        In any case, here's the facts: when I make coffee at home, it is brewed at 200ish F. That is true. When I make tea tho it's like 170ishf. By the time I am ready to consume (post brewing) both are still not, but consumable, so I think it is safe to say that they won't burn me, at least very badly, if spilled on me.
        SilasX 3y ago
        And if you served them to a guest, right after preparing for yourself, it will be before it’s cooled down enough to drink. That doesn’t make it your fault if they spill it on themselves and fuse their labia. And it doesn’t make the grossness of the accident into prima facia evidence of the culpability of any one party up the line, as it’s always presented in these discussions.

Alupis 3y ago

For reference, your Keurig pours coffee into your cup at 192*F. McDonald's coffee wasn't even this hot when that lawsuit happen. Additionally - the detail often left out of all the armchair analysis is the customer placed the fresh cup of coffee between her legs while in her car, and removed the lid. Her legs crushed the now-unstable cup... and she was unsurprisingly burned.

emodendroket 3y ago
Yes, the kitchen has many hazards that are not expected in a drive-through restaurant, and your point about how she held the coffee is presumably why the jury found the plaintiff 20% liable rather than 0%.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Yes, and now the "Caution - Hot" markings on the cup keep us all much, much safer. Any temperature above 100*F is going to burn. There is no safe temperature above 100*F that is not going to cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    The warning was made more prominent and, probably more importantly, they switched to rigid styrofoam cups that are less likely to buckle as happened in that incident. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article shared in the thread elsewhere details how such burns take substantially more contact with skin to happen if the coffee is not served so hot.
  - Raidion 3y ago
    I think I agree with you on principle, but temps higher than 100 are totally fine in a lot of cases. Hot tubs are at 102-106. 120°F takes you like 10 minutes to suffer serious burns. But 140° will cause burns in seconds. I've seen cooks handle stuff waaay hotter than 140 for a half secondish (grab a noodle from a pot of boiling water, poke a 160+° burger on a grill, etc). Obviously makes a big difference if you splash yourself a bit vs get a whole cup on you too.

pxmpxm 3y ago

Found the litigator...

emodendroket 3y ago
I am not now nor have I ever been a lawyer.