3 ms·

Caution: coffee is hot.

brvsft 3y ago
Actually a classic example of the general public's misconceptions about the 'litigious' nature of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her nephew parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13] > Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] 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.[16][17] ... > The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). 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. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds.[12] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.[21] Of course, why am I bothering? You apparently think that human beings are just objects to be fucked with for your own pleasure, and that telemarketers are akin to literal Nazis who were "just following orders" when committing genocide, thereby justifying any harm you would do to them.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I’m not criticizing that specific case. Just that there’s now ridiculous warning labels on everything.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    What is the harm in having warning labels?
- metabagel 3y ago
  And she tried to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover her actual medical expenses, but they refused to offer more than $800.
croes 3y ago
Just like McDonald's lost because their coffee was unusually hot, parent would lose too because is answer was unusually loud on purpose and it's purpose was to hurt others. https://www.citizen.org/article/legal-myths-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case/ https://www.citizen.org/article/legal-myths-the-mcdonalds-ho...
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Yeah, I think so. Which is why I don’t think I’d ever do this… as much as gosh it would be satisfying to punish scammers.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Just like McDonald's lost because their coffee was unusually hot, The plaintiffs claimed so, but this wasn't actually the case. The coffee was so hot that it caused truly disturbing third degree burns, but that's completely normal for coffee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... The lawsuit and payout was nevertheless justified, because their coffee cup design was defective and because McDonalds were being assholes who refused reasonable requests to cover her medical expenses.
  - croes 3y ago
    Maybe normal but not usual for places like McDonald's https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonal... >McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald's had long known that this was 20 to 30 degrees hotter than the coffee served at most other restaurants; in fact, this temperature range was indicated in its operations manual https://www.poolelg.com/blog/the-truth-behind-the-mcdonald-s-hot-coffee-case-.cfm https://www.poolelg.com/blog/the-truth-behind-the-mcdonald-s... >During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee

Actually a classic example of the general public's misconceptions about the 'litigious' nature of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > Stella May Liebeck was born in Norwich, England, on December 14, 1912. She was 79 at the time of the burn incident. On February 27, 1992, Liebeck ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a McDonald's restaurant at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her nephew parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it.[10] In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants, which absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks and groin.[12][13] > Liebeck went into shock and was taken to an emergency room at a hospital. She suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[14][13] 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.[16][17] ... > The Liebeck case trial took place from August 8 to 17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[20] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). 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. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds.[12] Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.[21] Of course, why am I bothering? You apparently think that human beings are just objects to be fucked with for your own pleasure, and that telemarketers are akin to literal Nazis who were "just following orders" when committing genocide, thereby justifying any harm you would do to them.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I’m not criticizing that specific case. Just that there’s now ridiculous warning labels on everything.
- flangola7 3y ago
  What is the harm in having warning labels?
metabagel 3y ago
And she tried to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000 to cover her actual medical expenses, but they refused to offer more than $800.

croes 3y ago

Just like McDonald's lost because their coffee was unusually hot, parent would lose too because is answer was unusually loud on purpose and it's purpose was to hurt others. https://www.citizen.org/article/legal-myths-the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case/ https://www.citizen.org/article/legal-myths-the-mcdonalds-ho...

Waterluvian 3y ago
Yeah, I think so. Which is why I don’t think I’d ever do this… as much as gosh it would be satisfying to punish scammers.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Just like McDonald's lost because their coffee was unusually hot, The plaintiffs claimed so, but this wasn't actually the case. The coffee was so hot that it caused truly disturbing third degree burns, but that's completely normal for coffee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... The lawsuit and payout was nevertheless justified, because their coffee cup design was defective and because McDonalds were being assholes who refused reasonable requests to cover her medical expenses.
- croes 3y ago
  Maybe normal but not usual for places like McDonald's https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonal... >McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald's had long known that this was 20 to 30 degrees hotter than the coffee served at most other restaurants; in fact, this temperature range was indicated in its operations manual https://www.poolelg.com/blog/the-truth-behind-the-mcdonald-s-hot-coffee-case-.cfm https://www.poolelg.com/blog/the-truth-behind-the-mcdonald-s... >During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee