Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > Key Thread Archive
Reload this Page >

McDonald's and Hot Coffee

McDonald's and Hot Coffee

 
Old 06-06-02, 10:14 PM
  #76  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just some more food for thought...

From CDC

It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees

Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go.
johnglass is offline  
Old 06-06-02, 10:56 PM
  #77  
DVD Talk Hero
 
namja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In Transit, HQ
Posts: 25,048
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go.
Again, that's not the point. The point is that McDonald's knew the harm and decided to let all the injuries happen just so that they can make more money. They knew people would get burned, they estimated how many would sue, they estimated how much each settlement would be, etc. They did all this prior to setting the coffee temperature.

AND DURING THIS TRIAL:
from http://www.insuranceattorney.com/McD...offeeSpill.htm

Further, at the trial of the case, McDonalds' executives testified that they 1. knew of the risks involved with super hot coffee, 2. they had no intention of warning customers of the dangers of the super hot coffee, 3. they knew no one could drink the coffee at temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, 4. and they did not intend to change its policies in light of the evidence presented at trial.
namja is offline  
Old 06-06-02, 11:22 PM
  #78  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by namja

Again, that's not the point. The point is that McDonald's knew the harm and decided to let all the injuries happen just so that they can make more money. They knew people would get burned, they estimated how many would sue, they estimated how much each settlement would be, etc. They did all this prior to setting the coffee temperature.

AND DURING THIS TRIAL:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from http://www.insuranceattorney.com/Mc...CoffeeSpill.htm

Further, at the trial of the case, McDonalds' executives testified that they 1. knew of the risks involved with super hot coffee, 2. they had no intention of warning customers of the dangers of the super hot coffee, 3. they knew no one could drink the coffee at temperatures of 180 to 190 degrees, 4. and they did not intend to change its policies in light of the evidence presented at trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course they are in it to make money- they are a business! Do you think a company that makes $2+ million in two days worth of coffee sales doesn't know what it's customers want? Obviously people want coffee hot, or else they wouldn't buy it.
And forgive me for being skeptical about how the lawyers came up with the "facts" that McDonalds knew the risks and "let all the injuries happen".

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you know that hot coffee can burn"
Ronald McDonald: "Yes, I would think it would!"
Point 1 established- They knew the risks involved with super-hot coffee

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you think people are smart enough to know coffee that they can't even sip would burn if they bathed in it?"
Ronald McDonald: "Sure, no need to tell them the obvious"
Point 2 established: They refused to warn people of the apocalyptic dangers of SUPER-HOT coffee!"

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, do you know people can't drink coffee that hot?"
Ronald McDonald: "Yes, but most of our customers bring their coffee home or to work, or sit down with the paper to enjoy breakfast"
Point 3 established: The esophagus-scalding SUPER-HOT coffee could not be consumed!

Lawyer: "Mr McDonald, in light of the evidence before you, do you repent and promise to change your evil ways"
Ronald McDonald: "Umm... no"
Point 4 established: They will continue to serve the SUPER-HOT, ESOPHAGUS-SCALDING, ACID-RAIN TAINTED coffee the same way!
johnglass is offline  
Old 06-06-02, 11:47 PM
  #79  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Hmm. Interesting post, but you might want to throw a little hyperbole in there to spice it up.

Originally posted by johnglass
Of course they are in it to make money- they are a business! Do you think a company that makes $2+ million in two days worth of coffee sales doesn't know what it's customers want? Obviously people want coffee hot, or else they wouldn't buy it.
The damning point isn't that they wanted to make money. Nobody should fault them for that. The damning point is that the way they made that money was a method that they both should and DID know could cause injuries. And, even if it WAS relevant, I would question your assumption that "because McDonald's did it, it was what consumer's wanted." The industry practice was serving coffee a lot cooler than McDonald's did; I'd be willing to wager that all the other industry participants combined sold more coffee than McDonald's did, so maybe McDonald's was right that "hot is good", but maybe they were wrong about the extent.

-snipping through most of your rant-


Ronald McDonald: "Yes, but most of our customers bring their coffee home or to work, or sit down with the paper to enjoy breakfast"

If you read the accounts, McDonalds actually did try to make the claim that they overheated their coffee for transport. Unfortunately for them, their own research, uncovered in discovery, showed that to be false, so it caught them in a misrepresentation, at best.

-more snipped, imaginary ranting-

Your entire imaginary diatribe completely hinges on a total inability to understand the difference between a liquid that is "hot" and a liquid that is hot enough to melt your skin and muscles in a few seconds. McDonalds could have fixed the situation easily in one of two ways: warnings about the heat, or lowering the temperature of the coffee. They refused to do either, and people were injured very severely because of it. Even the judge, who was generally in favor of tort reform, didn't think the jury was wrong in this case.

You might want to try coming up with something a little more constructive than a fake lawyer-witness dialogue. I could come up with a nifty one where an Atticus Finch-like lawyer finally nails the evil, shifty corporate exec, who wears a monocle while twisting his handlebar mustache shiftily. What good does that do?
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 12:11 AM
  #80  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
-snipped through obnoxious attorney double-speak-
Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
McDonalds could have fixed the situation easily in one of two ways: warnings about the heat, or lowering the temperature of the coffee. They refused to do either, and people were injured very severely because of it. Even the judge, who was generally in favor of tort reform, didn't think the jury was wrong in this case.
So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe?

I understand your reasons for wanting to defend your fellow lawyers since this type of case gives all of you a bad name. But your blathering rant hinges on the fact that you cannot differentiate between actual facts and the spin the bar association has put on this case in a feeble attempt at public perception damage-control.

G'nite!

Last edited by johnglass; 06-07-02 at 12:29 AM.
johnglass is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 12:33 AM
  #81  
DVD Talk Hero
 
namja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In Transit, HQ
Posts: 25,048
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe?
If McDonald's is going to make their coffee so hot that it will cause third degree burns, then they need to let the public know. Even the McExecs agreed that their coffee could cause third degree burns, and that the public wouldn't and didn't know about this fact.
namja is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 12:35 AM
  #82  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
So that's your "easy" solution, counselor? Perhaps a warning just as you described on each cup of coffee: "Warning: SUPER-HOT coffee in use that may melt your skin and muscles if you're stupid enough to dump it in your lap"? How about a waiver that each customer must sign before being allowed to purchase said cup of joe?
How about a "Warning: Coffee served hotter than normal"; or "Warning: Coffee's Temperature May Cause Serious Burns" or "Warning: Coffee Served At 190 Degrees." You don't even have to put it on every cup. You can put a sign up at every drive through. Just something to give people adequate notice.

Again, how do you figure this lady was stupid? Clumsy, I can understand. But do you honestly think she subjected herself to this on purpose? That she picked up the cup and turned it upside down over her lap so she could read the bottom of it? THAT'S stupid.

I understand your reasons for wanting to defend your fellow lawyers since this type of case gives all of you a bad name. But your blathering rant hinges on the fact that you cannot differentiate between actual facts and the spin the bar association has put on this case in a feeble attempt at public perception- damage control.
Blathering rant. Neat. Never heard that one.

First, I'm not a counselor yet, friend.

Second, I think you may be a little confused. "Facts" don't mean "any possible scenario I can come up with to make the case look ridiculous". We don't have the case record, but as far as I've seen, none of the facts we do have are in dispute. The outcome from those facts is what has been disputed.

With regard to the case "giving all lawyers" a bad name, that's rubbish. I would bet there were more lawyers working FOR McDonald's (apparently, your side) in this case than against. If so, does that instead give lawyers a good name? And a jury of common people decided the case against McDonalds. Does that give regular citizens "a bad name"?

Your vitriol against lawyers also seems misguided. I can almost guarantee to you the "The Bar Assocation" doesn't have a unified opinion on the issue. People in criminal practice don't have a personal stake in what people think in this case. And if you think the corporate defense firms WANT people to think McDonald's was in the wrong, I assure you that you're misguided. Defense firms are some of the biggest proponents of tort reform you'll see anywhere, and they'll use this case as their flagship. If you think everybody for tort reform is looking out for the best interests of all, I've got some swampland to sell you. Spin works both ways, and if anything, I just would like it to stop in this case.
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 06:44 AM
  #83  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally posted by CaptainMarvel

I wish you'd tried the experiment with actual coffee, instead of just water. I'd imagine the presence of coffee grinds would make a difference in the temperature.

Also, there's a difference between the brewing temperature of coffee and the holding/serving temperature of that coffee. Nobody is claiming that McDonalds should have changed their brewing temperature, but the holding temperature (what the temperature drops to while on the burner) is too high.

In any case, I can't argue with you about the temperature that much. Those are your specific findings of fact, but the court apparently found otherwise. McDonalds had every chance to disprove those factual findings, but it obviously failed to do so.
I knew my experiment would be criticized for that, but I didn't want coffee last night. I repeated the coffee experiment this AM, but slightly modified for the actual way I make morning coffee.
Only made six cups, not ten, as that's all we drink, poured into a stainless, double-walled, "thermos" mug because that is what I really drink my coffee from. Measured temperature after brewing both in pot and cup. Measured temperature when I felt it was too cool and needed warm-up. Measured Temp for both the pot and the cup when I got my second cup.

Immediately after brewing: Pot 171° F, Cup 167° F
Needs warmup: 133° F (obviously personal preference, all other data reflects machine capability)
After Standing, 2nd cup: Pot 185° F, Cup 179° F

I think the interesting finding is that the coffee continues to warm after brewing, sitting on the warming plate. The other interesting finding is that Mr. Coffee is guilty of serving at a higher temperature than McDonalds is accused of, not, as argued McDonalds serves at least 20° F hotter than home machines. The third interesting fact is the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" attitude from the forum's lawyers and law students. I guess the fourth fact is McDonald's high priced lawyers seem guilty of incompetance if they didn't challenge the BS slung by the plantiff's high priced lawyers.

Mental note to self: Don't have lawyers over for tea or coffee.

Last edited by OldDude; 06-07-02 at 06:54 AM.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 06:48 AM
  #84  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally posted by RandyC
Coffee. Krups. 159 degrees in the cup and it's freakin hot.

Just another data point. I have always operated under my the perception that around 145 degrees is where is uncomfortable to put your hand in it. That should be less than a hot beverage and more than a bath.
I've never seen data for just the hand, and don't know. Whole body data is 120° F, which is an accepted maximum temperature at which a shower or tub should be able to deliver hot water. If you have hotter water for dishwasher, some codes require a reducing or mixing valve, that ensure you can't deliver hotter in bath tub. That would be way to cold for a hot drink.

Thanks for adding 2nd data point.

Last edited by OldDude; 06-07-02 at 06:55 AM.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 09:52 AM
  #85  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
LurkerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,687
Received 561 Likes on 404 Posts
Originally posted by OldDude
I knew my experiment would be criticized for that, but I didn't want coffee last night. I repeated the coffee experiment this AM, but slightly modified for the actual way I make morning coffee.
Only made six cups, not ten, as that's all we drink, poured into a stainless, double-walled, "thermos" mug because that is what I really drink my coffee from. Measured temperature after brewing both in pot and cup. Measured temperature when I felt it was too cool and needed warm-up. Measured Temp for both the pot and the cup when I got my second cup.

Immediately after brewing: Pot 171° F, Cup 167° F
Needs warmup: 133° F (obviously personal preference, all other data reflects machine capability)
After Standing, 2nd cup: Pot 185° F, Cup 179° F

I think the interesting finding is that the coffee continues to warm after brewing, sitting on the warming plate. The other interesting finding is that Mr. Coffee is guilty of serving at a higher temperature than McDonalds is accused of, not, as argued McDonalds serves at least 20° F hotter than home machines. The third interesting fact is the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" attitude from the forum's lawyers and law students. I guess the fourth fact is McDonald's high priced lawyers seem guilty of incompetance if they didn't challenge the BS slung by the plantiff's high priced lawyers.
Facts, huh? Fact 1: All the "data" I got was not me "assuming" or "guessing" as you accused me of in a an earlier post. It was based on an article I read that discussed the EVIDENCE presented at trial. My mind was not made up; like everyone, I bought into the hyperbole that the media presented at first. Upon further RESEARCH into the FACTS PRESENTED AT TRIAL, I came to a different conclusion. Apparently, so did a jury as well as a judge. (Make that 2 judges, the one who served as a pre-trial mediator and the trial judge, who could've granted "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" if he believed the jury was clearly wrong). I can't contest your research into the temperatures, but those obviously weren't presented at trial. You have done two experiments at home on one coffee maker. Doesn't make it invalid, but also don't raise it to the level of a scientific conclusion either. Nevertheless, I would imagine that some pretty accurate temperature data was presented, so I am inclined to believe that they had accurate representations to consider.

And, if we're talking about assumptions, you assume an awful lot. You assume the woman had "high priced lawyers". Did you write that with as much of a sneer as you could muster? Where did you get such facts? Or, are all lawyers in private practice "high priced lawyers" to you? You have made assumptions about me and my attitude, as well as the other lawyers/law students here; you obviously aren't aware of how we are trained. We are NOT trained to assume things or just make a decision as to which side is right and leave it at that; we actually are trained to see both sides and be able to argue both sides. I could easily make a cogent argument for McD's. However, after researching into the facts of this case (something you don't appear to have done, despite your personal experiment), I came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a very valid argument, one that I would probably have voted for were I on the jury (with the disclaimer that I have not seen the actual record, so I don't know precisely all the evidence presented).

I am not defending the lawyers in this case; I couldn't care less how they handled themselves. I'm also not defending lawyers in private practice, since I fully intend to work for the govt or a non-profit. Nevertheless, if you are going to start bashing others for assumptions and not considering the facts, I suggest you direct a little of that bashing at yourself...

Last edited by LurkerDan; 06-07-02 at 09:55 AM.
LurkerDan is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 10:15 AM
  #86  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by namja

If McDonald's is going to make their coffee so hot that it will cause third degree burns, then they need to let the public know. Even the McExecs agreed that their coffee could cause third degree burns, and that the public wouldn't and didn't know about this fact.
All store bought coffee will cause third-degree burns, it's just a matter of how long it takes. I should think a reasonable person would know this. Even if McDonalds coffee were 20 degrees cooler, as some people suggest, it would have been a matter of 1-2 seconds before 3rd degree burns set in. The lady was wearing sweatpants in the car, which soaked up the entire contents of the cup like a sponge and held it against her skin. Had the coffee been 130 degrees she still would have likely received nearly the same injuries

Last edited by johnglass; 06-07-02 at 10:23 AM.
johnglass is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 10:22 AM
  #87  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
LurkerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,687
Received 561 Likes on 404 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass


All store bought coffee will cause third-degree burns, it's just a matter of how long it takes. I should think a reasonable person would know this.
Perhaps you are right, but then I guess I am not a reasonable person. Honestly, I would expect that coffee spilled on me would *not* cause 3rd degree burns, even if I did nothing. I would assume that the coffee would *cool sufficiently* on my skin before such burns were caused. I surely would not expect coffee to cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds! Remember, we're not talking burns here. We're talking 3rd degree burns. Most of us will never have such burns in our entire lives (which leads me to believe that simply spilling coffee normally doesn't cause such burns). This is not a burn that just hurts, or causes a blister. This is a burn that can land you in the hospital for, I don't know, let's say a week.

Edited to add: hey don't edit your post while I am responding to it!

Last edited by LurkerDan; 06-07-02 at 10:25 AM.
LurkerDan is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 10:25 AM
  #88  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Actually, I know "justice" is not about "truth" it is a side-show in which each counsel presents the fraction of "truth" that benefits his client. I wouldn't expect plaintiffs' lawyer to present any contrary evidence. If McDonald's lawyers allowed the evidence (I hesitate to call them facts after my experiment) to stand on typical temperatures, they did a very poor job.

I would suggest they should have hired a retired engineer ( ) and bought him a lab-grade thermometer to conduct a few key experiments instead of relying on so much opinion:
*Measure the temperature of delivered coffee at various fast food places. (I don't really have enough interest in this case to wander into various restaurants with my electronic meat fork, which looks a little dangerous)
*Depose the woman and determine how she prepares coffee at home. Either test her coffee pot, or a representative number (I agree on need for more than one) of samples of the same model. Repeat the experiment I did to determine whether, as I believe, she has DE facto accepted the same risk at home for a number of years.

Now, while we're criticizing language, it may make sense to discuss this "melting flesh from bones" hyperbole. I grant that water at or near boiling can cause serious burns, we even use it to cook things and kill any evil critters lurking in it. However, if you have ever cooked anything in boiling water, you know it takes hours to even soften flesh so it comes off the bone easily. To "melt flesh from bone" you would need much higher temperatures, about 300° F certainly, as could be obtained with oil in a deep fryer or high pressure (process) steam.

Again I respect the right of plaintiff's lawyers to try slinging this bull, McDonald's lawyers did a very poor job of refuting with data easily obtainable and appear incompetent.

(But I admit to slinging a little hyperbole of my own. Isn't that permitted in "closing arguments.")
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 10:26 AM
  #89  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Just north of Atlanta
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by LurkerDan


Perhaps you are right, but then I guess I am not a reasonable person. Honestly, I would expect that coffee spilled on me would *not* cause 3rd degree burns, even if I did nothing. I would assume that the coffee would *cool sufficiently* on my skin before such burns were caused. I surely would not expect coffee to cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds! Remember, we're not talking burns here. We're talking 3rd degree burns. Most of us will never have such burns in our entire lives (which leads me to believe that simply spilling coffee normally doesn't cause such burns). This is not a burn that just hurts, or causes a blister. This is a burn that can land you in the hospital for, I don't know, let's say a week.
I've added a bit to my post above concerning this. According to the link in my post at the top of the page, 3rd degree burns set in in a matter of 2 seconds at 150 degrees. Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her ).
johnglass is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 12:06 PM
  #90  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by OldDude
Actually, I know "justice" is not about "truth" it is a side-show in which each counsel presents the fraction of "truth" that benefits his client. I wouldn't expect plaintiffs' lawyer to present any contrary evidence. If McDonald's lawyers allowed the evidence (I hesitate to call them facts after my experiment) to stand on typical temperatures, they did a very poor job.
I agree. If it were that simple to disprove, and if they didn't, then that's certainly a poor job. But it seems ridiculous to me to even consider that they wouldn't have at least considered that tactic, or a similar tactic.

I would suggest they should have hired a retired engineer ( ) and bought him a lab-grade thermometer to conduct a few key experiments instead of relying on so much opinion:
*Measure the temperature of delivered coffee at various fast food places. (I don't really have enough interest in this case to wander into various restaurants with my electronic meat fork, which looks a little dangerous)
*Depose the woman and determine how she prepares coffee at home. Either test her coffee pot, or a representative number (I agree on need for more than one) of samples of the same model. Repeat the experiment I did to determine whether, as I believe, she has DE facto accepted the same risk at home for a number of years.
I think you're probably misunderstanding where they got that information from; they can't just pull that sort of stuff off of a website like you can here. They DID bring in experts on the matter to testify about the subject; their expert opinion may differ from yours, but that doesn't make your opinion superior to theirs. The idea of testing her coffee pot does sound interesting, assuming she brewed coffee at home. But the idea of her accepting that same risk at home could also be easily countered; she might not have been willing to drink her own coffee in the car, b/c it was too hot, but if the industry kept their coffee at a lower temperature than McDonalds did, she might not have had reason to expect McDonalds' coffee to be that hot.

Now, while we're criticizing language, it may make sense to discuss this "melting flesh from bones" hyperbole. I grant that water at or near boiling can cause serious burns, we even use it to cook things and kill any evil critters lurking in it. However, if you have ever cooked anything in boiling water, you know it takes hours to even soften flesh so it comes off the bone easily. To "melt flesh from bone" you would need much higher temperatures, about 300° F certainly, as could be obtained with oil in a deep fryer or high pressure (process) steam.
Maybe so. I'm certainly not going to try that myself to find out, but A) it doesn't take all that much boiling for skin to easily come off of a piece of meat when it's cooked, which is largely what's burned, B) your opinion of what damage a burn can cause conflicts with bunches of other accounts I've read on the subject (and it also agrees with accounts I've read). Do a search on Google groups for "boiling water" and burns; you'll get tons of stories from the "minimal burn damage" side, and tons of stories from "melted down to the muscle" side. So in a courtroom setting, it would be a matter of which story was more compelling. I can certainly see how somebody COULD find your side the most compelling, but I can see it the other way as well. And if that's the case, this McDonalds situation goes from being "an obviously biased runaway jury" to "a jury call I just don't like."

Again I respect the right of plaintiff's lawyers to try slinging this bull, McDonald's lawyers did a very poor job of refuting with data easily obtainable and appear incompetent.
Again, I think you're oversimplifying here. If McDonalds' lawyers could have proven their point, as easily as you seem to think they could have, then they did a terrible job. But I doubt it's as simple as you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by johnglass
I've added a bit to my post above concerning this. According to the link in my post at the top of the page, 3rd degree burns set in in a matter of 2 seconds at 150 degrees. Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her ).
My grandmother's pretty old too, but I've seen her move when something burns her. It's pretty fast. In any case, at 140 degrees, it takes 5 seconds of exposure to get such a serious burn; which I think would be enough time to get out of a pair of sweats (or at least pull them away from the skin). The jury apparently accepted testimony that most coffee at home was around that temperature. I'd also wonder how quickly coffee cools down while inside a pair of sweatpants; it may be that it cools very rapidly, which is why a 160 degree liquid wouldn't be that dangerous, but a 190 degree liquid could cause such severe burning. I don't know, but I'm sure they explored that.

Could this case have been decided the other way? Probably. McDonalds dishonesty and attitude during the trial certainly didn't help them though; even the judge called them callous. But lots of cases out there COULD be decided differently, and at least a reasonable argument could be put forth for each. Whether or not you disagree with what the facts were in this case, with those facts, the decision wasn't unreasonable. We can second guess the fact-finders all we want, but we don't have the benefit of seeing the witnesses testify to determine their credibility, and we don't have any of the actual wording of their testimony. What I don't think this is was what it's normally touted as, which is a shining example of how tort law is spinning wildly out of control. And it certainly isn't "some old lady trying to get quick money from spilling coffee on herself" as you hear it described sometimes.
CaptainMarvel is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 01:21 PM
  #91  
DVD Talk Hero
 
RandyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: shine on you crazy diamond
Posts: 26,043
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Also speaking as an engineer, the thing that changes the data is thermal mass and transfer. Water splashed on you can be very hot and not cause much damage. The same reason people can walk on hot coals and not get burned. The mass of your body is much greater than the coals. This was made worse by the proximity and mass of the liquid being greater due to her sweatpants. You can have your skin splashed with molten metal (trust me on this) and if it's fast enough, it's not a big deal.

But from the case data I read, McDonalds had kept their coffee much hotter than normal for other fast food restaurants. Thney knew it. It was not a matter of whining about it, it was actual injuries from people that were reported to McDonalds and they made an deliberate decision to not change the temps.

I am sure McDonalds hired engineers to back up their claims and did a ton of investigation and such for the trial.

And for the claim that lawyers are the ones that back this up. I am not a lawyer. I will not be a lawyer. It just seems to me that the facts speak to the jury and court resolution as being accurate and most arguments against this come from emotion and a lack of in depth understanding of the case.
RandyC is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 01:28 PM
  #92  
DVD Talk Hero
 
namja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In Transit, HQ
Posts: 25,048
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Again, it's not really the hot coffee that is the core of this problem. It's the McDonalds' attitude that was the REAL problem. They new the dangers, they purposely hid it from the public, and despite hundreds of complaints and this lawsuit, the McDonalds' executives testified that they will not do one damn_thing about it.

Originally posted by johnglass
Had the coffee been 130 degrees she still would have likely received nearly the same injuries.
Same injuries from 130 degrees (as 185 degrees)? Never. The water cools rather quickly, so even with the sweat pants, even if she was wearing sponge, she will not get third degree burns.

I also am neither a law student nor a lawyer.
namja is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 01:28 PM
  #93  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 4,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
Again, she was wearing sweats that kept the hot coffee against her skin, and I would guess at her age she wouldn't be able to get out of them all that quickly (unless maybe I sweet-talked her ).


jdodd is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 02:08 PM
  #94  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
LurkerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The People's Republic of Boulder
Posts: 24,687
Received 561 Likes on 404 Posts
Originally posted by CaptainMarvel
My grandmother's pretty old too, but I've seen her move when something burns her. It's pretty fast. In any case, at 140 degrees, it takes 5 seconds of exposure to get such a serious burn; which I think would be enough time to get out of a pair of sweats (or at least pull them away from the skin).
Actually, from the account I read, she didn't immediately remove the sweats. Not because she was too old and slow, however. What I could gather from the article was that she didn't realize the danger immediately, but that wouldn't explain why she didn't react to searing pain. The best I could guess (the article really didn't say) was that she was either in some sort of shock or the burn somehow deadened/killed the nerves. Her grandson, the driver, saw his grandma looking really ill/incapacitated after a minute or two, and he pulled over and removed her sweats, IIRC.

Don't know what legal relevance that all has, but thought I would point it out...
LurkerDan is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 07:32 PM
  #95  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally posted by johnglass
Just some more food for thought...

From CDC

It takes 2 seconds for a child to receive third degree burns from water at 150 degrees. It takes 5 seconds if the water is at 140 degrees, and 30 seconds at 130 degrees

Granted that is for a child, but I would assume that an old person's skin would be just as fragile, if not moreso. Looks like 130 degree coffee is the only safe way to go.
I went and checked some scold sites as people suggested. If you want to be safe you need to keep temp. under 120. However, if you made coffee, let it cool to 120 and tried to drink it, you would be very unhappy.

Also went to some (gourmet) coffee sites to see what they recommend for good taste. Guess what:
link
Many countertop coffee makers fall short in flavor expectations because the water isn't hot enough to brew good coffee. According to professional coffee houses, the ideal serving temperature should be between 180°-190° Fahrenheit to bring out the most flavor. Cold, cool, or warm water can't properly extract the coffee, and anything brewed at less than 180º F will be under-extracted and weak.

The amount of coffee in the filter basket is a matter of personal taste. A good rule of thumb is one heaping tablespoon per 6 oz. cups brewed, but that can be adjusted until a desired flavor and strength is reached.

Once coffee is ground and brewed, its ready to serve. But coffee isn't always served all at once. Typical at-home coffee makers keep the coffee warm by using a hot plate. This actually continues to cook the coffee, which destroys the delicate flavors. Professional coffee houses do not recommend heating coffee for longer than 20-25 minutes because it causes the coffee to become burnt and taste bitter. The Best Coffee Maker circumvents that problem by brewing directly into a vacuum carafe, which keeps the coffee warm without ruining the flavors. The coffee that was brewed using the right type of grinds and using the right brewing temperature can be enjoyed for hours, not minutes.
Now if coffee needs to be 185 to be good, and 120 to be safe, I think we have to conclude that coffee inherently has some dangers and people unwilling to accept the dangers should drink water (note the same argument applies to tea, except iced tea made from powder.)

Or this link
At what temperature should you serve coffee?

M. O'MAHONY, S. Pipatsattayanuwong, S. Lau, and H. S. Lee, Dept. of Food Science & Technology, Univ. of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616



OBJECTIVES: To investigate preferred and expected serving temperatures for coffee using R-index measures.


METHODS: 225 consumers tasted black coffees at six different temperatures (see below), ranking them for preference. The lowest temperature was below the pain threshold, the next below the epithelial damage threshold, the next two above. The two highest temperatures approximated to coffees served commercially. The 225 consumers also served themselves coffees from commercial servers at the six different temperatures (see below), ranking them in terms of expected serving temperatures in coffee shops. Time from serving to drinking was observed for 110 consumers of black coffee in five coffee shops. Temperatures and cooling rates were measured to allow estimates of their drinking temperatures.


RESULTS: The rank order of preference for temperatures was 160°F (71.1°C) = 140°F (60.0°C) > 170°F (76.7°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). The degree of difference between these values, given by significant R-indices (p 140°F (60.0°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). Corresponding significant R-indices (p<0.05) were: 55.64% (NS), 68.43%, 88.06%, 68.15%, and 81.62%. Coffee shop serving temperatures ranged 168-187°F (75.6-86.1°C). Observed time from serving to drinking ranged: 2-1005 sec, (median 114 sec). The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F (75.6°C) (S.D. 9.01°F).


SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.

Last edited by OldDude; 06-07-02 at 07:37 PM.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 07:43 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Another link
Brewing Temperature (Filled Chamber with Water at Room Temperature):
----Average: 195 Degrees F ----Minimum: 190 Degrees F ----Maximum: 201 Degrees F
Coffee Serving Temperature
Average: 178 Degrees F
Typical recommendations for brewing and serving temperature are in the range McDonalds used. They are not the exception you all are claiming them to be. If you want coffee served at safe temperatures (120 F) I believe you need to try it first. I also believe you will be completely dissatisfied with the product.

Now, it is absolutely true that at recommended serving temperatures, coffee is dangerous if you spill large amounts on yourself, it will burn, I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is that there is a commercial market for "safe" coffee.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 07:57 PM
  #97  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
link
A good coffeemaker will deliver brewing water with a consistent temperature in the 195 to 205 degree Fahrenheit range. Make sure your brewer meets that requirement. As the Specialty Coffee Association of America¹s (SCAA) The Basics of Brewing Coffee mentions, water in that temperature range "liberates the aromatic materials more rapidly and permits proper extraction of other solubles within a reasonable time." Naturally, the actual coffee beverage will be several degrees cooler because the temperature will decrease once the water is filtered through the coffee.
on the flip side:
link
The third guideline addresses another common flavor-denial attack: Low-temperature brewing. Most drip coffee makers brew at a temperature too low for proper flavor extraction. The most frequent explanation that I've heard for this sad yet pervasive flaw is that "really hot" coffee is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and thus manufacturers have lowered brewing temperatures accordingly. Whatever the reason, the effect is a cup of lifeless coffee.

So what is the right temperature? Just off the boil works well. Put a kettle of freshly drawn, cold water on the stove. When it boils, pour it over your freshly ground coffee.

Last edited by OldDude; 06-07-02 at 08:00 PM.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 08:34 PM
  #98  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
The lawyers should love this one. The plaintiffs lowyers were incorrect about temps of home coffee brewers and in this hjudge's opinion, The McLawyers failed to challenge them. The smoking coffee Pot:
link7. Coffee temperatures. Judge Easterbrook cited the voluntary ANSI standards for brewing, holding and serving coffee. A restaurant industry newspaper, noting that the plaintiff's lawyer in the (in)famous McDonald's coffee-spill case had told the jury that home coffee brewers operate at an average temperature of 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit, reported:

[The] executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America . . . is called upon frequently in similar cases . . . . [He] says the McDonald's defense erred by not challenging the figures cited for home coffee brewers, which were incorrect. Standards set by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers require brewing temperatures to fall between 170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and holding temperatures to be at least 130 degrees. [¶] The coffee industry has even higher standards. . . . They set a minimum water temperature of 195 degrees and a maximum of 205 degrees. To maintain flavor, coffee must be held at 185 degrees to 190 degrees. The temperature drops by as much as 15 degrees when coffee is poured and loses up to 10 degrees when creaming agents are added. . . . [¶] "To be pleasing as a hot beverage, coffee, tea or soup must be served in a range between 155 degrees to 175 degrees," he says.
OldDude is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 08:35 PM
  #99  
DVD Talk Hero
 
namja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In Transit, HQ
Posts: 25,048
Received 19 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally posted by OldDude
Typical recommendations for brewing and serving temperature are in the range McDonalds used. They are not the exception you all are claiming them to be.
Those temperatures are for the Saeco 'Caffe Latte' Drip Coffee Brewers and NOT relevant to this case. What is relevant is the temperature of coffee at most restaurants: 140-160 degrees. If everyone's serving at 140-160 and McDonald's serves at 185, then it is their responsibility to let the consumers know.

What if you ordered steak at a steakhouse, and it arrived at a piping hot 200 degrees, and you got burned from it? Or you ordered seasoned fries, and it arrived super spicy (2x as spicy as jalepeño peppers), and you started choking from it?

The restaurant has the responsibility to inform the consumers. If they do not, and if their actions cause harm to the consumers, then they are legally responsible for their actions.
namja is offline  
Old 06-07-02, 08:43 PM
  #100  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,125
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
No other restaurants, huh. Hardee's is involved in a similar suit. The case is not decided. However, an "expert" witness was tossed out by the judge, because he could only testify the coffee was too hot and could not provide expert testimony on whether the cooler coffee he was recommending was acceptable to cutomers. Not from the rukling that Hardees' serves at about the same temperature as McDonalds. (scroll down in link, there is another unrelated decision on top of it.
link
The relevance inquiry assures that the expert's proposed testimony will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" as required by Fed. R. Evid. 702. "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (citations omitted). The consideration of relevance requires the district court to determine whether the testimony "fits" the instant case; not all reliable expert testimony is relevant expert testimony.

See id. ("[S]cientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes."). In other words, Fed. R. Evid 702 requires a valid scientific connection between the expert's testimony and the pertinent inquiry before the court as a precondition to admissibility. See id. at 591-93.

With those considerations in mind, the court turned to the question of whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding Diller's testimony. The court concluded that it did not. Diller's testimony simply did not meet Daubert's requirement of relevance and for that reason, it was properly excluded.

The pertinent inquiry was whether Hardee's coffee, which is served at a temperature of approximately 180 to 190 degrees, is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, namely human consumption. On this subject, Diller's testimony merely states that "[c]offee spilled onto bare skin at that temperature will cause a severe burn nearly instantaneously" and "coffee drunk without dilution at that temperature range will cause burns to the mouth." Diller further opined that "[f]rom the perspective of lowering the probability of causing thermal burns, 150 degrees is a much safer temperature for serving beverages." In sum, Diller's conclusion is that coffee served at 180 to 190 degrees is hot enough to cause burns and that coffee served at a lower temperature is less likely to do so, an idea that is not disputed by any party.

Although Diller's testimony may well be accurate, it failed to address the key question of whether it was unreasonable for Hardee's to serve coffee at that temperature. Importantly, although Diller is an expert on thermodynamics, he possesses no knowledge or experience in the food or beverage industry. Thus, Diller seems unsuited to the task of determining the utility of Hardee's policy of serving coffee at a temperature of 180 to 190 degrees. Perhaps for this reason, Diller failed to indicate whether it is possible for Hardee's to serve quality coffee at a lower temperature. See Holowaty v. McDonald's Corp., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1083 (D. Minn. 1998) (to rebut evidence that heat is an essential element of a quality cup of coffee, plaintiffs would need to show it was possible for defendants to sell quality coffee at a lower temperature). Indeed, Diller suggests that,"[f]rom the perspective of lowering the probability of causing thermal burns," coffee served at a temperature of 150 degrees would be safer, but he failed to explain whether such a modification is even possible, and if so, whether Hardee's was unreasonable for failing to make such a modification.

Diller's testimony on the risks associated with serving coffee at a temperature of 180 to 190 degrees, without any information on the feasibility or costs of lowering the serving temperature, did not aid the trier of fact in determining whether it was unreasonably dangerous of Hardee's to serve coffee at the higher temperature. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony, and no new trial is warranted.
OldDude is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.