3 ms·

> 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 i

> 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
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > 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). That 9 degree gap between McDonalds and Starbucks isn't very meaningful since both those lower bounds are more than hot enough to cause third degree burns. 155F coffee can cause third degree burns to children and the elderly within 1 second of contact: [PDF] https://www.regionalonehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Scald-Burns-Flyer.pdf https://www.regionalonehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02...
  - croes 3y ago
    So McDonald's still values profit over customer protection. What's the point in mentioning Starbucks coffee temperature in 2004? It's about franchises like McDonald's in 1994
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Coffee burns work the same no matter the year. Get a big cup of black coffee today from Starbucks or virtually any other coffee shop and it will be hot enough to give you third degree burns in less than a second. The hot coffee lawsuit is like if somebody bought a fancy chef knife and the blade fell out of the handle and stabbed them in the foot. Their lawyers then argue that the blade was far too sharp and also the handle was defective. They win the lawsuit because the handle was in fact defective. But now you have people on the internet saying that knife co made knives too sharp, when in reality any good knife will be sharp enough to stab your foot. The outcome of the lawsuit was correct but everybody took away the wrong lesson from it.

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

mcpackieh 3y ago
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau... > 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). That 9 degree gap between McDonalds and Starbucks isn't very meaningful since both those lower bounds are more than hot enough to cause third degree burns. 155F coffee can cause third degree burns to children and the elderly within 1 second of contact: [PDF] https://www.regionalonehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Scald-Burns-Flyer.pdf https://www.regionalonehealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02...
- croes 3y ago
  So McDonald's still values profit over customer protection. What's the point in mentioning Starbucks coffee temperature in 2004? It's about franchises like McDonald's in 1994
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Coffee burns work the same no matter the year. Get a big cup of black coffee today from Starbucks or virtually any other coffee shop and it will be hot enough to give you third degree burns in less than a second. The hot coffee lawsuit is like if somebody bought a fancy chef knife and the blade fell out of the handle and stabbed them in the foot. Their lawyers then argue that the blade was far too sharp and also the handle was defective. They win the lawsuit because the handle was in fact defective. But now you have people on the internet saying that knife co made knives too sharp, when in reality any good knife will be sharp enough to stab your foot. The outcome of the lawsuit was correct but everybody took away the wrong lesson from it.