4 ms·

This is how we get warning labels that say “CAUTION: hot beverage do not spill in lap, may cause burns.”

zulban 3y ago
The idea that the hot coffee case is a frivolous lawsuit is corporate propaganda. The real case had real merit and they won for good reason. McDonald's I think? As for the warning, lawyers must have thought it was a good idea in case the companies screw up again.
- throwuwu 3y ago
  > Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment > Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson 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 By that reasoning all of the coffee you make at home is defective. Arguing that something is corporate propaganda is rather underhanded when the facts of the case are publicly available for anyone to read
  - consp 3y ago
    82-88c is the right temperature after a short cool down since it's best brewed at around 93c. Unfortunately common sense does not apply in the US (law system).
    - Phemist 3y ago
      The case was really about what is a reasonable temperature to serve coffee at. It was found that McDonald's, as a franchise, mandated coffee to be served at this temperature, generally 20 degrees higher than the temperature of take-away coffee served at other establishments. This 20 degrees difference accounting for the difference between third degree burns within seconds and a significant chance at preventing the third degree burns. Liebeck's behaviour was of course risky, but even applying common sense, she could not have expected the coffee to be _this_ hot. McDonald's was also aware of the tendency of drivers to want to immediately drink the coffee after buying, yet continued to insist on serving at this extremely high temperature. McDonald's should have been the ones to apply some common sense and simply lower the mandated temperature.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    > 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. I don't know how hot the coffee you make at home is, but the whole process is probably less risky that being handed a cup while in a small space.
- DrThunder 3y ago
  Yeah, didn't they find out McDonald's was making the temp so unreasonably hot that no human would even drink it at that temp? They were doing it so people didn't ask for refills as quickly and it would save money on coffee.
  - lhoff 3y ago
    Iirc it was also so the coffee could be kept for a longer time within the brewer before it got stale.

The idea that the hot coffee case is a frivolous lawsuit is corporate propaganda. The real case had real merit and they won for good reason. McDonald's I think? As for the warning, lawyers must have thought it was a good idea in case the companies screw up again.

throwuwu 3y ago
> Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment > Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson 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 By that reasoning all of the coffee you make at home is defective. Arguing that something is corporate propaganda is rather underhanded when the facts of the case are publicly available for anyone to read
- consp 3y ago
  82-88c is the right temperature after a short cool down since it's best brewed at around 93c. Unfortunately common sense does not apply in the US (law system).
  - Phemist 3y ago
    The case was really about what is a reasonable temperature to serve coffee at. It was found that McDonald's, as a franchise, mandated coffee to be served at this temperature, generally 20 degrees higher than the temperature of take-away coffee served at other establishments. This 20 degrees difference accounting for the difference between third degree burns within seconds and a significant chance at preventing the third degree burns. Liebeck's behaviour was of course risky, but even applying common sense, she could not have expected the coffee to be _this_ hot. McDonald's was also aware of the tendency of drivers to want to immediately drink the coffee after buying, yet continued to insist on serving at this extremely high temperature. McDonald's should have been the ones to apply some common sense and simply lower the mandated temperature.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  > 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. I don't know how hot the coffee you make at home is, but the whole process is probably less risky that being handed a cup while in a small space.
DrThunder 3y ago
Yeah, didn't they find out McDonald's was making the temp so unreasonably hot that no human would even drink it at that temp? They were doing it so people didn't ask for refills as quickly and it would save money on coffee.
- lhoff 3y ago
  Iirc it was also so the coffee could be kept for a longer time within the brewer before it got stale.