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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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! :D

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 ( :wave: ) 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.") -smile-

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 :D).

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.

Quote:

---

I would suggest they should have hired a retired engineer ( :wave: ) 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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

rotfl
rotfl
rotfl

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...

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
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

Another link
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.

link
on the flip side:
link

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.

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.

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

Did you read the "recommended serving temperature" from gourmet coffee houses? What are they, chopped liver?

One would expect different things from a "Gourmet coffee house" than they would from McDonalds, wouldn't you think?

In terms of quality of coffee, sure, but not temperature. Cheap coffee brews at the same temperature as the good stuff.

Evidently, this is not the case. Fast food chains, diners, family restaurants, etc. serve their coffee 140-160. Gourmet houses (according to your research) serves coffee at 185+.

All I can say at this late point in the evening (late for me, at least) is this:

You go, OldDude! I give up! :lol: :thumbsup:

I had long since given up and gone to bed.

I am really not trying to minimize the issue; I understand the woman got serious burns. I just think that people are too quick to propose a solution that won't work very well. A lot of research points to the need for very high brewing temperatures and serving immediately at almost the same temperature to have satisfactory product. I think people proposing that coffee be served at 130 seriously need to brew a cup, pour it black, let it cool to 130, then add cream and sugar if they use it, and drink it. I pretty well guarentee they will be dissatisfied, and not repeat the experiment.

I don't think there is a market for "safe" coffee. Now I think we need to look at the fact that drinkinging dangerously hot coffee in a moving vehicle, even as a passenger, is inherently more dangerous than sitting in a restaurant (except in California where there might be an earthquake). Maybe coffee shouldn't be sold at the drivethru window, only indoors, (and shouldn't be sold at all in California). Maybe coffee drinking in a vehicle should be prohibited. I just don't feel this woman's suit should ruin coffee for everyone else, especially when in a restaurant, not their cars.

It also looks like McD's lawyers "phoned it in" by failing to challenge "incorrect facts" (usually called lies, except in legal proceedings) presented about home coffee makers, just as I guessed.

Hardee's, another gourmet coffee house. :lol:
Now there are two dangerous chains.
Do you have independent data for this or are you just believung the same lawyers who submitted "incorrect facts" about home coffee brewing?

Seriously, based on my measurements 155-160 is probably hot enough at the moment it is poured. I think 140 would be very unsatisfactory, I found 133 to be the temperature at which I would demand a warmup. These numbers will vary a little from person to person.

Note that law is unlike science. Only people with "standing" in the case can submit material. If one lawyer submits "incorrect facts" and the other lawyer fails to challenge, they don't get corrected. That doesn't make them true. In science, anyone can run an experiment. If the results are reproducible by others (and I certainly encourage you to make your own measurements), then they are generally excepted as true until someone does a reproducible experiment that shows they are wrong, at least under certain circumstances. This will always cause a little tension between the two viewpoints.

How would a warning not work to put people on guard? It's been said numerous times by people here that they don't really expect to get third degree burns that quickly from a mere coffee spill.

Quote:

---

I don't think there is a market for "safe" coffee. Now I think we need to look at the fact that drinkinging dangerously hot coffee in a moving vehicle, even as a passenger, is inherently more dangerous than sitting in a restaurant (except in California where there might be an earthquake). Maybe coffee shouldn't be sold at the drivethru window, only indoors, (and shouldn't be sold at all in California). Maybe coffee drinking in a vehicle should be prohibited. I just don't feel this woman's suit should ruin coffee for everyone else, especially when in a restaurant, not their cars.

---

So how does it ruin coffee for everybody else? There's nothing about the lawsuit that said McDonalds had to lower their coffee temperatures. That may be the route McDonalds chose, but they have other options available to them. There were two elements to her lawsuit, both needed: a dangerous temperature, and no warning. McDonalds chose to get rid of the former, rather than providing the latter. Blame McDonalds.

Quote:

---

It also looks like McD's lawyers "phoned it in" by failing to challenge "incorrect facts" (usually called lies, except in legal proceedings) presented about home coffee makers, just as I guessed.

---

Again, if we go by your information without acknowledging that there might have been more going on behind the scenes, then it does make McDonalds lawyers look bad. But how does that make this a bad case, or a failure of justice? McDonalds, by your version, had a VERY easy way to defeat the arguments of Mrs. Liebeck. They didn't, and it's their fault, not hers, or anybody else's. That's the whole point of a trial; it's a fact finding expedition.

I also would like to point out that "incorrect facts" aren't called "lies" all the time, in legal proceedings or otherwise. They're also merely called "errors." Or do you think now that her lawyers purposefully misrepresented their facts, without the benefit of actually hearing them, or how they were presented?

I never said I opposed a warning, and nowadays everyone prints a warning on their lid (of course no one reads them) so "problem solved." Apparently this case started in '92. I have no clue when McD added their warning. If everyone else is happy with the warning, I am too. I just don't want lukewarm coffee because of this woman.

The date of the trial vs conditions today may unfairly color my opinion. The plaintiff's lawyers made a big deal that home machines serve coffee at 140. Via the Internet, there is so much info that says this is simply not true that the lawyers would have to either be suborning perjury or wearing their most myopic, tunnel-vision blinders and letting their expert testify erroneously. Admittedly in 1992, such data might not have been so easy to find. However, I can't find any data that suggests any home unit serves at 140 so I wonder where or how they made this fact up.

Editted to add: I found many law firms that give a "summary" of this case on their website. I would describe them as "ambulance-chasers," you would describe them as specializing in fee-contingent injury and product liability cases. At any rate they cling to this clearly incorrect claim that home machines serve coffee at 140. What about them, now that it is obvious this "incorrect fact" was never true?

I also have to admit in spirit of full disclosure that, while I don't oppose a "hot" warning on the coffee lid, I do get upset with the 20 pages of inane warnings in some product's instruction book before I can get to the real instructions on how to operate the product properly, instead of improperly.

As Namja stated, that was actually a review about how a coffee machine performed.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Stop knocking down my straw man, please. Nobody is arguing with your assertion that coffee tastes better at higher temperatures, and I don't believe anybody is saying that you ccouldn't find a way to serve super-duper red hot coffee, if you want. The only thing people are saying (I think) is, if the coffee is hotter than normal (which, whether you think it's correct or not, was uncontested), and therefore presented a substantially greater danger than normal, there should be a warning.

From the Hardee's case you mentioned:
First, take any state court decision on a similar subject with a grain of salt; those judges are usually elected, and no judge wants to be the one who gets labelled as allowing another "McDonalds case."

Second, I question the judge's reasoning in that case:By that standard, since you're an engineer, not an expert in the food service or beverage industry, should we completely disregard your findings?

Quote:

---

In terms of quality of coffee, sure, but not temperature. Cheap coffee brews at the same temperature as the good stuff.

---

There's a difference between brewing temperature and serving temperature. Nobody's debating brewing temperature.

Quote:

---

I never said I opposed a warning, and nowadays everyone prints a warning on their lid (of course no one reads them) so "problem solved." Apparently this case started in '92. I have no clue when McD added their warning. If everyone else is happy with the warning, I am too. I just don't want lukewarm coffee because of this woman.

---

I'm fine with a warning too. I tend not to drink coffee at any temperature, because I'm sensitive to burns on my tongue. As long as the warning is sufficient (ie. not "may cause burns"; even "may cause serious burns" is okay.), I have no problems. I do question the wisdom of placing the warning on the cup, in tiny print. It seems to me you create more of a burn hazard that way, just from people trying to read it. It would strike me as smarter to put a warning on the drive through, but I'm sure that's not the only way.

While looking for the year the warning was added, I ran across this: That's the sort of thing that just drives me nuts.

I really wish people would stop making assumptions about me, and what I believe or would say. If you knew me in person, you'd know that I'm sharply critical of opportunistic lawyers.

I'll try to be less inflamatory. I really meant any lawyer or aspiring lawyer would use the second term as the legally correct term for this particular specialty.

What do you think about them continuing to misrepresent the temperatures at McDonald's vs home coffee brewing machines? Ethical? Violation?

I'm sorry. This thread is so long I have no idea what straw man I'm knocking down.

At my company, we always said we threw straw men out there to be burned, so if I knew, I probably wouldn't respect him, but in this case, I can't even identify him.

Again, I can't argue with any certainty what's "normal", and we don't know how those facts were argued in the case. But if you're totally willing to discount the findings of one court, at least bear in mind that those numbers for Hardee's serving temperature come from another court's findings.

In any case, even if the serving temperature of coffee everywhere IS that high, I don't believe it's "normal" for people to expect to get burned that seriously from coffee. McDonald's knew their coffee, served at that temperature, in the confines of a car, had caused serious injuries before (well above what I would expect a reasonable, average person would expect), and they did... nothing.

Quote:

---

It was only to make the point at least two major chains serve at this temperatures. Again calling into question whether the lawyers had good testimony about serving practices. I'm certainly qualified to measure temperature with a thermometer. When it comes to offering a studied opinion on whether a restaurant could serve coffee at 130° F and satisfy their customers, I am aware it is not my field and would not offer a professional opinion, as that would be an ethical violation. My personal opinion is obviously that the idea is complete BS. I believe this expert admitted he was not qualified in that particular area and the judge dismissed his testimony.

---

We don't know how they reached the conclusion that Hardee's served coffee at that temperature; as you've pointed out, facts CAN be wrong in cases. The guy in the other case was certainly qualified to tell whether a person would be burned (he was admittedly an expert on that matter), but they threw all of his testimony out for the reason he wasn't an industry expert, which none of us are.

Quote:

---

But the many brewing links I overwhelmed you with point out that it should be served only "a few" degrees cooler and served immediately (and the one site you felt was irrelevant specifically touted the serving temperature it could achieve, presumably as a "good thing" since advertising normally addresses good things. If brewed properly, it would not have time to cool naturally within the "immediately," you would have to add approximately 0.3 lbs of ice per pound of coffee to reach the claimed "acceptable" temperatures quickly.

---

I'm not arguing with you about the temperature coffee should be served at. But if you think that $70 coffee maker is what's normal, I would suggest otherwise; another one of your links mentioned that the normal coffee machine costs around $30, and has a lower temperature. If you look at the rest of that site, it becomes clear that it's a gourmet coffee oriented website (see their tutorials on "the science" and "the arte" of making coffee). It's highly unlikely that a gourmet site would give a "normal" coffee maker an "A" rating. And again, nobody is debating that, for sure, gourmet coffee drinkers expect hotter coffee. At the very least, maybe people are a little more aware of how seriously they can get burned from coffee, if only because of the warnings.

Quote:

---

What do you think about them continuing to misrepresent the temperatures at McDonald's vs home coffee brewing machines? Ethical? Violation?

---

Again, since we don't have the record of the case (and the judge who felt it was appropriate to criticize the jury's findings didn't have the record of the case), I'm still, in spite of what you said, not 100% convinced that their findings of the home coffee temperature HAD to be unreasonable. We don't know WHAT evidence they put on to support that finding; for all we know, they had the actual engineer who designs each and every Mr. Coffee up there saying that. I don't have a problem with most of the sites (that I see) that mention it.

The point of some of those sites seem to mention what really happened in the case, not Tort Reform's version of it. That was actually part of how the case was decided, so why not mention it? It isn't as if anybody could use their website as evidence in court (and have it be respected).

For years, the insurance companies and tort reform proponents have endorsed the myth that this lady drove herself up to the window, bought coffee, spilled it on herself while driving, got a little burned, got in front of a crazy jury, and won millions of dollars. When what happened was completely different; you and I may not like the numbers they had to work with, but with those numbers, do you really think the jury was wrong to decide as they did?

This case is always brought up as an example of the tort system out of control, and it just isn't. At worst, it's an example of a bunch of corporate lawyers screwing up by allowing some (maybe) erroneous information to go unchallenged. At best, it's a message to big business not to underestimate the value of humans in their cost-benefit analysis.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry. This thread is so long I have no idea what straw man I'm knocking down.

At my company, we always said we threw straw men out there to be burned, so if I knew, I probably wouldn't respect him, but in this case, I can't even identify him.

---

Sorry. It seemed to me that you were intent on debating me about whether coffee is better hot or not. It seemed like you were acting as if I was saying "coffee would be okay a little colder", and then you were tearing that position apart with references about how coffee is "better". I think that was a misunderstanding between us, because you (apparently) didn't know (at that point) that I was okay with leaving all coffee that hot (provided there's a reasonable warning).

My fiancee is going to kill me if we don't go out to eat now, and we'll be out of town tomorrow. If there's something you want me to reply to, please make it clear that that's what you want, and I'll do it Monday after I get off work. Otherwise, I guess the last word is yours.

I think this is about played out. However, you seem to think that I am focused only on gourmet home coffee units. That is just what I found first. I also found this site which makes commercial units in various sizes (follow the link, its too long to post)

They stress even in a commercial setting the need to brew at 200° F and hold the brewed coffee at a 185° F serving temperature.

I also found some 40 year Navy coffee directions (Navy coffee is not gourmet) which specify 185° F holding temperature.

This of course is the temperature of the coffee as leaving the pot and flowing into your cup. The thermal mass of the cup and whether you use cream or sugar will affect the temperature in the cup.

If McD's lawyers didn't challenge wrong data, I don't blame the jury - how are they to know. At the same time, that doesn't make wrong data true; wrong data will never become true. That gets back to a comment I made earlier about law vs. science. I feel plaintiff lawyer misrepresented the facts; in court, it is up to defendent's lawyer to challenge. After court, it is "jump ball" and anybody can call "shennanigans." I have found zero data supported their claim (I would have posted it if I did) and a ton that didn't. I recognize it would need some real verification to be used in court.

No need to respond as I think we are agreed they should warn, and not much left to debate after that except that I emphatically disagree with plaintiff's lawyer about "normal."

My sister in law school said that the lady ended up getting a lot, lot less than $3 million after all the litigation and court stuff was finished. McDonalds probably appealed the decision and got the amount dropped to under $500k.

Matt

If you get their coffee everyday, you know exactly how hot it is. If you've complained and they still make it too hot, don't get it. No one is forcing anyone to buy and drink their coffee.

My point was that she should have just been awarded her costs for medical and court expenses and nothing more. She still *chose* to buy and consume their coffee knowing how hot it is. She *chose* to do this in an environment that can easily lead to spilling it on yourself. She did not have to accept *any* responsibility for making these choices.

I think this side of the affair was all discussd in some depth earlier in thread.

And to link with <b>elektra</b>'s post - and the quote therein - concerning the situation of the "accident", someone mentioned before that it is the heat of the liquid combined with the duration it comes into contact with the skin that accounts for any particular degree of burning.

<b>OldDude</b>'s excellent empirical research shows the kind of product-heat certain machines produce. Coffee spilling over (pooling?) in one's lap/groin area when seated is more likely to stay in contact with the skin for longer and so the injury would have been exacerbated precisely because of that, IMO.

Also, the skin in the inner thigh is thinner and more prone to injury(as opposed to the back).
This woman put the cup in her lap. Your analogy should then say "If all people who drove Ford Pintos after having a 12 pk. of beer..." If you want to accurately portray what happened here.

Well, I'm off to sue GE, they don't have any warning on their stoves telling you not to sit on them while they are hot.