TIL In the Hot Coffee lawsuit against McDonalds,punitive damages were given due to McDonalds intentionally overheating coffee to save money on refills
2y 8mon ago by lemmy.world/u/maniajack in til from www.poolelg.com
During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald's hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.
It's pretty screwed up how the media made light of this lawsuit.
A lawsuit that ended in gross negligence, and the media shamed the lady involved for a decade.
This is ultimately why I hate capitalism.
These corporations spend tons more money fighting against stuff than they do paying it out. The woman wanted her hospital bills paid, that was it. Instead, they go to town spending so much money with the intent to misinform and spread propaganda than just paying it.
Many of these large employers do the same with unemployment cases and on-site work injuries. Spending more time and money doing fuck all than just paying it out like the greedy pigs they are.
This has little to do with capitalism, capitalism doesn't dictate that the more powerful smear the weaker into submission and autocracies around the world show that it doesn't need capitalism for the powerful to suppress the weak. This was a failure of the justice system. They could've ordered McDonalds to spend as much money as they spent on smearing the lady to fully admit guilt and apologize. It is the justice system that failed.
It’s literally capitalism. It’s not “smearing the weak”, it’s a company spending money to potentially save money later, regardless of the consequence to anyone else. That’s the point.
Edit: lol I got blocked. Weak as piss.
And that still has nothing to do with capitalism. Unjustly exerting power happens under any system. It's the justice system that allowed for this exertion of power to occur, if you want to blame anything, blame the weak laws protecting individuals against smear campaigns.
TIL USSR was capitalist. /s.
No, trying to do more with less is not capitalism. It's material reality.
It's power being the only criterion, which means there's no working fallback criterion. There should be at least one (which is where left libertarians are), or the structure of power should be different (which is where right libertarians are). Neither thing can be made fact to full extent, which is why we need both.
Which is why I am a distributist.
It might not be a DIRECT result of capitalism, but guess what screwed up the "justice" system? Underregulated capitalism!
It's specifically designed to work for the rich and powerful and against everyone else, because that's who make the laws and keep the lawmakers in somehow legal bribes.
Capitalism didn't screw up the justice system, the justice system failed to be impartial. It failed just as much in the USSR. Western european nations also have capitalism and they are far better off than the US is. It is not capitalism that is to blame that bribery is all but legal in the US.
It has everything to do with capitalism
Thank you for having a brain in this thread.
Only it's the mass media system that failed rather. Which works in the way allowing to spend money on forming opinions with predictable outcomes. Which enables much worse things than dangerous customer service.
A lot of people around here say "capitalism" when they mean something more like "the Kali Yūga", "this fallen world, this vale of tears", "the age in which the Tao is lost", or "this age of muck and clay, in which we are lesser than our fathers of iron, who were lesser than their grandfathers of silver, who were lesser still than the ancients of gold."
The folks who speak this way, if you asked them, "Was there any wrongdoing in the world before the first stock certificate was issued?", would say "Of course there was!"
If you asked them, "Did pre-capitalist kings or judges ever favor the unjust over the just because the unjust gave them riches?", they would say "Yes, they did!"
If you asked them, "In ancient times, were there rich and well-fed tribes, and poor and starveling tribes, and did the richer tribes lord over the poorer ones?", they would say "Certainly."
Which all goes to show, at some level they do know they're not really talking about "capitalism" in the economic or historical sense. They're not talking about an economic structure or a stage of Marxist history. They're taking about wickedness, graft, injustice, abuse of power -- things which are much, much older than capitalism.
They're merely using their favorite snarl word instead of just saying "evil".
But capitalism specifically favors the greedy and individualistic. It's no surprise that if you base your society on capitalism, people will get more greedy.
On top of that, capitalism enables some uniquely capitalistic evils, such as commodity fetishism and alienation.
Also, some consider capitalism inherently unjust, making it an evil in its own right.
And why do we blame capitalism instead of generic “evil”?
Because capitalism is the system that actively promotes it and is in every facet of our lives.
It’s greed not evil.
Murdering a baby is evil, letting millions starve to death is business.
Capitalism opens an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many, whereas any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy. At that point it becomes the same kind of discussion as the prohibition discussion. Do you ban it or do you allow and regulate it. Banning greed won't make it go away, it will only force it into hiding and to undermine the current system. Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.
an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many
Wow, that's some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.
any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy
First of all, that's false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.
Besides, if that was true, that would be a good thing! Being greedy isn't some inescapable natural urge that must be satisfied or you explode. Making space for the most base parts of human nature isn't good with cruelty, deceitfulness or (except in the ordered and consensual context of sports and even that is a bit iffy in many cases) violent tendencies, so why do you want to nurture and protect greed?
Banning greed won't make it go away
Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.
Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.
Yeah, that's the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out..
Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.
Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.
Under capitalism, a greedy person can sate their greed by offering up something many people are willing to pay for. Elon Musk is a shit human being, but his companies revolutionized the EV market, the commercial rocket launch provider market and Star Link now allows for internet access anywhere. Capitalism has turned his greed, at least in part, into a benefit many can profit from. Similarly, with Elon now tanking Twitter, BluSky, Threads and Mastodon can compete for users that have stopped using Twitter.
First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.
I was talking about systems of resource distribution, the government concerns itself with the judicial system.
Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.
Just like the prohibition lessened the impact of alcohol on society? Just like the war against drugs lessened the impact of drugs on society? Just like, as evangelicals would claim it, banning contraception and abortions lessens, in their eyes, the negative impact on society. Historically, the greedy have been, through corruption and the like, just as damaging to society as they have been now.
Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…
With a bunch of them in jail and with Trump weakening the republican party for years?
Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.
Capitalism isn't to blame for the suffering of the ones standing in the way of the big players, western european nations show that quite clearly. While not perfect, they have much stronger protections for the powerless against the powerful, yet they also employ capitalism. This lawsuit is a failure of the judicial system, it wouldn't have happened in a country with stronger laws against abuse.
Just stop at your first sentance, no it doesn't.
Okay, maybe you really do think kings and warlords were more virtuous than shareholders or CEOs. Alas, it was not that way. They were buttholes too. Buttholery is not controlled by the economic system of the day.
You seem to think that I wouldn’t also reject authoritarianism?
There is no system of governance or economy among humans that you wouldn't reject, if you reject every one in which wrongdoing takes place or people enrich themselves unjustly.
That's my point. "I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it" is dopey, because that predicate is not unique to capitalism; in fact it's universal. In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.
Therefore, the person who reasons this way would reject any conditions under which they might find themselves living.
Whatever "reject" means here, I'm not entirely sure.
"I reject capitalism because people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within it"
No, we oppose capitalism because it inherently ENCOURAGES people to benefit themselves by doing injustice. That's a crucial difference.
In every system of the world, people can benefit themselves by doing injustice within that system.
It's equally true that people can be violently bigoted against religious, racial and sexual minorities in every system, but only a few actively ENCOURAGE them to.
Regulation is still useful. You're basically arguing for anarchy with your naive take. When a system advances the idea to exploit people, the system is fundamentally flawed. Will all systems have abuse? Sure. But that doesn't mean "you will dislike all systems, so it's irrelevant if one is better or worse."
And what makes capitalism superior to any other form of resource distribution that humanity has tried so far is not that it does or doesn't allow greed, but it lets the greedy use their greed in a way that has at least the potential to benefit the many. And by having a legal avenue for greed to be used, capitalism forces greed to the surface and makes it legal for everyone to discuss.
Oh yeah, we’re all feeling that trickle down any day now.
You are missing the point. EU countries also have capitalism and they are far better off. It's not capitalism that sets taxation laws or anti-trust laws, those are what has failed in the US. In the EU, while not perfect, those types of laws are more rigorous and in turn those countries suffer less from corruption and injustice.
Not everyone is American.
Also capitalism is still ticking up the EU, there’s a reason they have to constantly fight against it just to ensure the most basic of freedoms for its citizens.
Did you just "but maybe" somebody about their own beliefs?
Ok, and we still create laws to combat it. I don't think "evil always existed, so let's not have the FDA because it's not that we're protecting citizens from bad food, but simply from evil."
This is such a weird "I'm 14 and this is deep" take.
Of course it needs laws to curtail the worst of the impacts capitalism has. Capitalism is a system that distributes a finite amount of resources between demand that outstrips supply. It doesn't concern itself dishonest actors, that is what the judicial system is for. McDonalds was such a dishonest actor and that they got away with it is a failure of the judicial system.
You're confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.
Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn't concerned with anything as it's not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn't incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.
And she only wanted to be reimbursed for the hospital bills...
My mom broke her tooth on a small stone in some cereal while all that was swirling around the collective consciousness. She wouldn't sue because she "didn't want to be like the McDonald's lady." The dentist wasn't even suggesting to sue for some kind of "pain and suffering" money, just literally the $1500 it cost to fix the tooth.
There's no evidence to suggest that they paid to spread disinformation, that would be massively illegal and open them up to way more lawsuits. Ragebait has just always been popular.
Soup!
It's pretty scary how media can influence us so much, even when we think they aren't, and even when we think "only dumb people fall for it." No my friend, the majority fall for it. Not cause they're dumb, but because they've scienced the hell out of human nature and know precisely how to do it right under our noses. It started with marketing and advertising that works well, unfortunately. They've cracked the psyche code. Media adopted it. Big tech improved it. Gah... this is turning into a rant about capitalism; I didn't intend to go there. Eek.
Manufacturing consent is a good book on this topic.
We ALL fall for it, just not all the same things at the same time.
That's what's so insidious. I'm sat here thinking "you rubes, I read into the details right away, and knew something was off about the story". So then I have to ask myself, "ok, smartass, what are you falling for that you think you know".
Its just so damn insidious.
I'm just glad for her that almost no one knows her name. Can you imagine the doxxing and death threats she would be getting if this happened today?
Corporations gonna corporate
I even was thinking if that episode from Seinfeld not just a scheme pulled by McDonald's.
The woman's scalds were almost enough to kill her. She spent weeks in hospital and needed skin grafts. To make it worse, McDonald's had received multiple complaints about the temperature of their coffee.
Her lawsuit was just to help cover the medical expenses. McDonald's didn't want a precedence of being sued so their PR cooked up a narrative of greedy frivolous lawsuits and America bought this story hook line and sinker.
She even started out planning to accept the $800 oopsie poopsie money McDonald's offered her until her family was like "um. No? You've gone from independent living senior to permanently disabled. You deserve for them to pay the full medical bills"
It fused her labia together. The coffee was so hot and the burns were so bad that her labia fused together.
how the fuck does coffee even get that hot?
Step one: keep it on a hot plate that keeps it at 200° so that you can serve it longer
That is all the steps
There is an additional step:
- Serve it in a disposable container that doesn't soak up any of the heat.
Pouring hot coffee into a thick cold porcelain cup, tends to quickly cool it down to drinkable levels. A flimsy paper cup... not so much.
And now imagine giving that to a person in a moving vehicle without a lid.
There's so much fucked up here it's almost unbelievable. This is legitimately a bigger safety risk, after all is said and done, than many risks in an industrial chemical plant.
Good point
but water only goes to 100 degrees, even with other stuff dissolved i can't imagine a water-based liquid going much higher than like 120 degrees at most..
200 Fahrenheit. That's 93.3C. Just below literal boiling.
Edit for more information, an adult human will suffer 3rd degree burns if exposed to 150F (65.5C) liquid for two seconds. This was 133% hotter than liquid that will cause 3rd degree burns. And it was poured directly in her lap, soaked into cloth that she could not easily remove. This was straight up evil levels of negligent.
Just a quick note but neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit degrees can be used the way you’ve described - 200°F isn’t 133% of the temperature of 150°C and neither is 93.3°C 133% hotter than 65.5°C because the ‘zero’ point on both of those scales are entirely arbitrary.
The two temperatures you’re talking about are ~366.45 K and ~338.65 K, as kelvin is the only true SI measurement for temperature whose zero point describes a natural or true zero, meaning that the higher temperature is roughly ~8% hotter.
Brought to you by the National Department of Pedantry
I was a bit annoyed at the nitpickiness of this comment until I saw that you're from the NDP. I salute your good work and consider myself more educated.
Nice
To add on, even when something isn't boiling, it'll generate an appreciable amount of vapor. The boiling point is just the temperature at which bubbles form within the liquid. The top surface is still going to give off hot steam. I honestly don't know if near boiling vs boiling is a meaningful distinction in terms of how dangerous it is.
I wonder actually if a boiling liquid would be slightly safer because there's more vapor and less liquid.
They're using the stupid units.
We're talking bald eagle units
Humans being fragile creatures is how
So if you get 3rd degree burns on your pelvic area and you go to the hospital, they should just tell you to stop being fragile?
What? No, hot water is bad because people are fragile. I was being serious; this isn't some jab, it's just life
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. It seemed like you were saying she was weak and fragile for getting burned. I read it as she should have “rubbed some dirt on it and walked it off”.
Don't worry dude. I understood what you were saying. Not sure why so many people took it a weirs direction
They had a slush fund set up specifically to pay out settlements for coffee burns.
They knew it was a problem, but decided it would be cheaper to pay off burn victims than to serve their coffee at a safe temperature.
When you dive into that case, you definitely side with the lady. She had some pretty serious burns, like way beyond what most of us would get if we spilled coffee that we made at the house.
If my memory serves me well, she originally only asked them to cover the medical expenses. So their greed ended up costing them far more.
The injuries involved the phrase "labia fused to leg".
Oh.. I can't unread that...
And you canot unsee it if you ever saw the court pictures
And you can't unsee the imagined version of that if you imagined what that eould look like
Well then. TIL that third degree burns can fucking fuse your body parts together. Jesus Christ
It was used as the definitive "Frivolous Lawsuit", but... in reality McDonalds just told Media Companies "Make us look like the victim here, or we're pulling our precious advertising dollars."
The picture of that poor woman's thighs is all you need to see to know this was not a frivolous suit
Also, McD's had years of complaints from their own store managers that the coffee was too damn hot.
Important to note that the women initially just asked McDonald's to pay for her treatment, and they told her to get fucked.
I just wish the victims lawyers had responded to those claims with the pictures of that poor woman's third degree burns. she suffered horrifically and for years.
Fortunately we have actually come aways since then, if a company tried that kind of stunt today, Not only would they be called out for it online, but they would also likely catch a second lawsuit for defamation.
hopefully, she deserved so much better.
And media did a bang-up job portraying the victim as a petulant child who is too dumb to drink coffee. Classic corporate Uno reverse card.
I thought this was indeed one of those ridiculous American lawsuits. Until I heard of the injuries later. No I would never wish this settlement money for myself if it included those injuries on that part of my body. Justice was served to the McD.
Yes... Melted labia is not something I was expecting. $2.7M seems too low of a punitive damage for the big arches clowns.
It's more the fact that McD was aware that their coffee strategy was a ticking time bomb due to many complaints from staff and customers, but they didn't fix it.
IIRC the reason they heated the coffee that much in the first place was that it prolonged the time the coffee tasted fresh, so they didn't have to make a fresh batch as often. Aka more profit.
The good news is the only way they're able to get away with it was because the internet hadn't caught on as much, and because this was before the media was afraid of catching defamation lawsuits.
Must be one of the more successful smear campaigns in recent history. I'm not even from the us and we heard about that shit and used it as an example of greed and frivolous lawsuits. It was only like 5 years back I learned the truth. Believed that shit for 25 years..
Edit: oops should've responded to the media part of thread
Poor lady. Her labia was physically fused together from the heat, but she was still called dramatic. I can't imagine everything that she had to go through.
And she originally only asked for McDonald's to cover her medical expenses ($20k) which they refused.
Do you really think she just sat there and willingly watched her vagina boil?
Also, she was wearing jeans, so you're just making shit up.
And have you seen pictures? They're horrendous. I'll assume you have already, since you're an expert on this incident, but in case you haven't, here you go (very NSFW)...
Thanks for proving my point. There is no way quick contact with coffee even at 200 degrees can do this.
This is caused by letting it sit. She could have taken her pants off and prevented burns this bad.
Old lady in a car gets coffee on her lap.
No she fucking couldn't. And even if she could you are grossly underestimating the damage of 16oz of 200 degrees coffee.
All you're doing is showing how much of a sociopath you are.
Lol. You're a moron.
Lolok pin dick
The woman was 79 years old. Getting the pants on before her labia was fused together by intentionally overheated coffee was probably a fucking chore.
Holy shit, this is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read.
Listen, do this as a test, pour water a cup of water on your pants. See if your legs get wet. Better yet, heat it up or chill it (not enough to hurt yourself) and see how cold or warm your legs feel.
False equivalent test. Yes ur legs will get wet. No u won't get burns like u see in the pics. That's my point. This would have been a minor scalding if she wouldnt have just sat there and had taken her pants off.
Dude, she was 79 years old and wearing jeans. You think she could just jump out of them in like 2 seconds? She's in a fucking car in a drive through, you can't even get out the drivers side door in those circumstanced.
You'd only get a light scalding because I'm telling you to not get near boiling water. I'm telling you to do this to see if your legs get wet and if you can still feel the temperature even if they somehow don't.
but yet people will still dismiss it as a stupid lawsuit by some greedy woman. gotta protect those big corps
Thanks to the successful smear campaign executed by the corporate lawyers.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck
This smear campaign is clear and obvious defamation. Someone should get in trouble for this, but unfortunately no one will.
I wonder how much Jerry Seinfeld got.
but yet people will still dismiss it as a stupid lawsuit by some greedy woman. gotta protect those big corps
People, or "people"?
Redirecting the narrative away from your faults helps protect your profits.
both. the corporation for starting a smear campaign and the public for buying into it and not doing their own research
Both can be true.
They could be, but they aren't. The woman literally had her labia fused together from the burn and just wanted them to pay for her fucking surgery.
She didn't seek out that much money. She only wanted money to cover her medical costs. If you feel upset about the amount then you should blame the jury. They're the ones who came up with the amount. (Which the judge lowered.)
It's not about the money. Its about her being as dumb and as irresponsible as mcds.
Except she fucking wasn't, you twat. Stop victim blaming.
Fuck you shithead. There are no victims in civil suits.
The woman who received serious burns from McDonald's overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.
There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn't a person so it's not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.
Well actually there are some formats of a company that will be seen as a person from the perspective of the law
I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -
- She wasn’t driving the car, her nephew was.
- The car wasn’t moving, he pulled over and stopped so she could put in the cream & sugar.
- MOST IMPORTANTLY, the coffee that McDonald’s served was not consumable by a human because of the excessive temperature.
- She was hospitalized for 8 days with 3rd degree burns, followed by 2 years of medical treatment.
- She only sued for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses.
Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”
She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.
Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.
So she could have gotten out and she spilled it on herself.
Still her own fault.
Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.
Others have already very kindly explained how you're completely, totally wrong, so I'll just add:
Neener neener, you're a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D
That's true nobody likes degenerate corporate bootlickers
Right. Her getting third degree burns means she wasn't a victim.
How was she dumb? How was she irresponsible?
Gee I spilled hot coffee in my lap....let me just do nothing and sit in it.
Ur labia don't get fused cuz coffee gets splashed on them.
I take it you've never seen or experienced burns from boiling water -- second degree burns happen nearly instantly, with third degree burns taking seconds.
The coffee they served her was near boiling.
They do if the coffee is as hot as McDonald's had it.
The temperature it was at can cause third degree burns in three seconds. Please tell me how an elderly woman buckled in a car can get all of the scalding coffee off of herself in under three seconds.
Did you know that liquid at 150F can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? This was 200F, 133% hotter than liquid that can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. The woman, who it would behoove you to recall was elderly, was sitting down, buckled in, wearing jeans.
Please, explain to me how, in this scenario, you would suggest that an elderly woman remove her now-scalding jeans in 2 seconds or less.
You can't, because it's impossible. Now fuck off, you complete piece of human garbage. Go suck corporate dick on reddit.
I drink my coffee above 150 wtf r u smoking???
I'm smoking science and facts. Sorry you're too stupid to understand them. One source: https://dcs.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/Child-Abuse-Tips-Scald-Injuries.pdf
Another source, citing 3 seconds at 140F: https://antiscald.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=15
Another source, a graph showing time to burn at liquid temperatures ranging from 130F to boiling: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif
Edit, hey! Just for fun, here's one specifically talking about the optimal drinking temperature for hot beverages. It only briefly mentions that the usual serving temp of coffee (~180F) can easily and quickly cause significant scalding, but it goes on to show that the optimal - in terms of customer satisfaction, taste, and safety - is a cool ~140F. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417907002550?via%3Dihub
I hope you spill it all over yourself everyday.
Classy.
They do if the coffee is just that damn hot which it was.
Yep cuz she spilled it on herself trying to put cream in and then she sat in it for like a minute. No way some coffee just poured on ur arm is hot enough to instantly fuse flesh .
Mcd should have paid the initial settlement I agree but the vast damage from this lady's experience was a result of her own actions.
That's what people can't get over.
I get how a jury could get it wrong and pay her for her suffering. And I pity her this experience What I dont get is why people completely absolve her of any responsibility here when her own actions were the first contributing factors.
Even if the coffee wasn't "too hot". Her own actions still would have left her burned. That is a fact.
Burn damage occurs in less than a second. Go dip your hand in a pot of boiling water as fast as you can if you want to try it, I'm sure you'll be just fine.
The jury also heard evidence how there had been multiple serious injuries before this lady and yet McD intentionally refused to lower the temperature as the bean counters realized they saved money keeping it hot... people couldn't drink very much of it in restaurant as they ate their breakfast and therfore didn't ask for refills. Even though they had paid out claims previously, it was cheaper to keep it hot and keep paying them out despite injuries. The jury thus decided on significant punitive damages to motivate McD to do the right thing.
I mean fair. I'm not trying to side with mcds here, really because I do believe they deserve blame, but I also believe it's not black and white. They don't deserve all of the blame here.
If an employee had spilled on her then yes but she literally did it to herself.
Consider however that she wasn't served this coffee in a store, but in a car. The possibility of spilling the drink is significantly more likely, especially since she wasn't given a lid. This isn't the woman's fault at all, it was a horrible accident just waiting to happen. It's like if a roller rink covered the floor in grease and periodically had spike pits.
I did a bunch of chemistry lab classes in college, I think I had one each year actually. We regularly heated liquids and worked with concentrated acids. If we had spilled a liquid this hot on ourselves in a similar volume, we would have seen similar burns. It would take longer than 2 seconds to rip off a glove (which is probably fused to your skin very quickly anyway) or disrobe our labcoats. The coffee being spilled on us like this would have given us incredibly severe burns too, and that's with PPE and emergency safety equipment right there. It would take far, far longer to get to one one of the showers and activate it even.
And this is in a controlled lab environment! There was no heightened risk of spills because of being in a moving vehicle nor having an open cup.
And guess what, neither did the jury. They assigned 20% of fault to her.
But you seem to not know this, yet keep on victim blaming.
Sounds like she does deserve 20% as you just admitted. Oh noes there goes ur high horse.
You're the one with the high horse from your hubris, mate.
So far you've strawmanned, goalpost moved, and ad-hom'd.
Got any more sophistry you'd like to trot out?
Burn damage happens near-instantly. Holy shit this is what happens when education isn't done properly.
They had also been warned several times previously to stop doing it.
Stop what? Brewing coffee with hot water?
If they started waiting until it cools down there would be massive complaints that it takes them too long.
Serving as hot as they did. Try reading the legal case. It is common everywhere for there to be a maximum temp you are allowed to serve hot drinks at for this reason. The store was cited multiple times for serving over that limit.
I've spilled freshly brewed coffee at home on myself, and I just needed to run my hand under the faucet for a bit and then clean up the mess.
This woman needed skin grafts from third degree burns. Saying the coffee was too hot is an absolute understatement.
The other day I put my coffee(that I just made) in the fridge door and without thinking proceed to bend and try and grab the milk in the fridge's door bottom, well I spilled that shit in my ear, neck and cheek, screamed like a motherfucker and ran to the shower.
The area was red for a day or two and I used aloe vera, that Mctrash coffee was dangerous hot.
Except for the YEARS of McD's own managers complaining about the excessive temp and requesting to reduce it.
It caused third degree burns. I've spilt half a pot of fresh food-service coffee on my arm and had both first and second-degree burns, but not third. You know, because food-service coffee makers all heat to the same temp, except for McD's, which has their's set much higher. (Go research why McD's milkshake machines are always down, despite being the same machines everyone else uses).
Having worked in many restaurants and some fast-food joints, they're all the same, and don't seem to have the supposed problem you claim.
It was so hot it fused her labia together. Do you really think most places make coffee that hot?
Oh man there is so much to this case. First, she asked for like $40k, enough to cover the cost of the medical bills. To be clear, she received extensive burns as the coffee was so hot that it would burn in seconds (the wiki had a breakdown of the times/temps and they were illuminating). Moreover, it wasn’t even the hottest coffee available. Starbucks was serving much hotter coffee at the time (the hottest I think recorded). In the end, she got paid, but McDs never cooled their coffee (nor did anyone else), all they did was make better lids lol.
AND she was in a car with no cup holders. It wasn't a standard feature in sports cars in the 90s. She had borrowed it from her son.
And you're right that it didn't change coffee temps that much:
“During the Liebeck court proceedings, McDonald’s said it served its coffee between 180 and 190 degrees,” according to The New York Times. “The company has refused to disclose today’s standard temperature, but Retro Report shows a handbook for franchisees calling for temperatures 10 degrees lower.”
If it doesn’t sound like much, it’s because it’s not. McDonald’s chooses to keep their coffee scaldingly hot because, according to attorney Butch Wagner, hot coffee stays fresh for longer. They save money by doing this (millions per day, in fact, across their US franchises alone), even if it means paying out for other hot coffee settlements—of which there are plenty.
Yeah but that's not the point of THEIR coffee, the point is that they make as much money as possible, the rest is whatever
Yeah but then you buy a second cup
What? Caffeine doesn't break down until like 450°F. Keeping coffee hot is absolutely the best way to keep it "fresh". Adding external heat does usually cause off flavors but has absolutely no effect on caffeine content.
No pictures? Disappointed, McDonalds spent millions trying to scrub them from the Internet.
I have to admit that i didn't expect that not boiling water could do so much damage.
She was wearing jeans. The superheated water absorbed into the fabric, and held it right against her skin. Part of the case was that McDonald's knew it was handing these cups of near-boiling water down, into vehicles, in which people were restrained. It made their conduct more negligent.
I had a soda spill on me once at a drivethrough. Everyone in the drive through business surely knows that things spill, down, onto customers.
212° is the boiling point of water
212 is the boiling point. Either way, that's going to cause some nasty burns.
°F not °C
if it was past the boiling point it would have already boiled off
FYI I Can't see it because it's blurred and I don't have an account.
Damn, that was far worse than I could imagine. Poor woman
People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they're absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I've often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he's a big "gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits" guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I'm a big "frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights" guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like "Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?" Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was "suing them for giving her what she asked for", the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.
And she only asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills. It was the jury who threw out her request and instead punished McDonalds with the huge settlement, because they were horrified by how grossly negligent the company had been and decided her request wasn’t a strong enough punishment.
Don't forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.
the same goes for the Dingos Ate My Baby woman
dingos did eat her baby.
They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald's knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren't to because of medical costs, but we're punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn't happen though. McDonald's had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.
But, butt... if she spilled the coffee, then it's on her for being clumsy... right? /s
they gave it to her without a lid when she ordered in the drive thru
Ouch... that's an asshole move, they deserve the punitive damages.
The fact that someone actually was dumb enough to sue over coffee being hot was a punchline in the 90s and 2000s. It's amazing what kind of misinformation can run amok in a world where you don't have easy access to the internet and whatever corporate wants the spin to be, that's what every Outlet is going to tell you.
Thankfully proper research has revealed that news groups were strong armed by McDonald's into leaving important details out to save their stock prices... and this version of the story is the one that's catching on.
I certainly hope that a better research clears up other misunderstandings ( the amount of people who actually believe Mother Teresa was a sadistic serial killer thanks to Christopher Hitchens riding the New Atheist wave of the early 2000's with his easily debunked Hell's Angel book is.. way too high. The book claims among other things that she ran sham hospitals when in fact she ran hospices long before the concept was a thing in mainstream medicine and is credited for pioneering the concept of palliative care.)
If you want to defend Saint Teresa of Calcutta and how she funneled charity money to the Vatican while being unable to afford analgesics in her hospices, calling pain "Jesus's kisses", or defending child molesters and getting an exorcism to heal her heart attack while opposing both abortion and contraception, then you shouldn't encourage people to do better research... which they can start with at:
Did you even read this link before you sent it?
Other than the parts I copied from it? Yeah, probably. You?
I did, it seems like you skipped most of the article and jump straight into criticisms, most of which have been largely debunked. There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican.
There has never been any credible accusation of Mother Teresa stealing money from her hospice to give to the Vatican
That's a funny way of saying that she sent over 90% of donations directly to the Vatican, instead of putting them towards hospice work. Sure, she didn't "steal from her hospice"... the money didn't even reach the hospice in the first place!
But hey, she managed to spare some change to fund monasteries over Europe, and followed Mahatma Gandhi's steps in "no painkillers for thee, but all of them for me".
You do know that in India, especially at the time, there was a ban on painkillers. Morphine wasn't even allowed for medicinal uses, so it's not that she kept the painkillers for herself, it's that she didn't have them to begin with.
You're quoting "Hell's Angel" which has been pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit
You don't seem to know there is more than one kind of painkiller (US, land of the opioids, amirite?). India had banned oral opium, not for medical use; they didn't join the Metamozole banning stupidity until 2013, just in time for other countries to start legalizing it as a way to combat opioid addictions (coincidentally, the opioid epidemic in the US started about when Metamozole got banned... surely no relation).
Saint Mother Teresa, kept giving her patients acetaminophen, several orders less effective than any of the alternatives she had available.
You're quoting "Hell's Angel" which has been pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit
Haven't read that, and don't plan on doing so. If what I'm saying, based on public sources, happens to match what's written in there, then you might want to revisit your definition of "pretty thoroughly debunked as bullshit".
Except if you checked the "public sources", you'd see you're literally just regurgitating the hit piece done by Hitchens, and absolutely nothing from the real history.
Additionally, Morphine, as I said, was illegal at the time. Her tylenol was the best she could do at the time.
you're literally just regurgitating the hit piece done by Hitchens
Not sure which sources are you regurgitating, since Morphine was legal for medical use, and you completely glossed over Metamizole.
Sounds like the "War on Drugs" talking points, that have so effectively spread illegal (and highly profitable) opioid abuse in the US.
It was India in the 1950's dude
It was India in the 1950's dude
Precisely, dude:
- Metamizole, invented in the 1920s, legal in India until 2013
- Mother Teresa started her cult in 1950
- India didn't restrict opium use until 1984
1884 maybe...
Sides, what makes you think she even had this. The Indian Governement's always been strict and it's not like they're giving this Nun from another country access to top of the line medicine. Especially when her patients are people so far gone that hospitals literally will not take them, because no one's ever heard of Pallative Care, because Theresa's in the middle of inventing the concept!
You may want to brush up on Indian history, including the 19th century India-China wars on (export) of opium.
India had no legislation regarding narcotics until 1985
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances_Act,_1985
If you check the "non criticism" parts of Mother Teresa's Wikipedia article linked earlier, you may notice how "this Nun from another country" was receiving Indian awards since 1962.
So no, there is no justifying of what she did for decades... unless you want to think the Indian government was fine with removing the terminally ill off the streets and dumping them into a hellhole run by a bunch of religious fanatics.
no one's ever heard of Pallative Care, because Theresa's in the middle of inventing the concept!
Except palliative care is not praying the pain away, this is:
unless you want to think the Indian government was fine with removing the terminally ill off the streets and dumping them into a hellhole run by a bunch of religious fanatics.
Okay the fact that terminally ill people were on the streets is already a really big problem in and of itself. But hey, fuck Mother Theresa for trying to do something about it eh?
I'm done with this conversation, say what you want. I'm not replying again.
I'm done with this conversation, say what you want.
🙊
Are you a ChatGPT bot comment?
Why is she in quotes?
Emphasis maybe?
Why are you "asking"...? (there, edited, hope that helps the tokenizer 🙄)
because I'd "like" to "know". Some people use them to communicate dubiousness, some people use them to indicate they're actually quoting someone, some "people" use them for emphasis.
"Assume good faith unless proven otherwise"... should be a rule. Anyways, we good now?
You /s but someone in this very same conversation posted a comment above basically saying the same thing.
Sort by "top", they'll be below... *sigh* there's always gotta be a reason to require the /s, ain't it?
I once worked in a chain and spilled fresh brewed coffee on my arm. Looks half a pot. Got second degree burns.
Company paid for my ER visit, naturally. No way in hell was our coffee as hot as McD's, by a long shot. And I we still in pain for weeks.
Didn't realize the reason was this petty. I always thought it had something to do with how many beans it took, or the time or something like that. Not that it just took longer for a customer to drink Beca they'd be burning their mouth. I'm glad she got what was owed to her. Poor woman.
I remember hearing that it was based on market research that a significsnt number of people would pick up coffee on their way to work/home, and drink it once they got there. So they superheated the coffee so that it would be at its ideal taste/temperature when they got to their destination.
But the refill thing sounds much more likely
They serve it that hot so that it's less obvious when the coffee isn't fresh. That way, you can save money by making fewer batches, and the people who are served old coffee won't realize it until long after they left the drive-thru.
They fuck you at the drive-thru, okay? They fuck you at the drive-thru! They know you're gonna be miles away before you find out you got fucked! They know you're not gonna turn around and go back, they don't care. So who gets fucked? Ol' Leo Getz! Okay, sure!
Yeah cuz mcds was losing millions on ....checks notes...coffee in the 90s
EVERY coffee shop overheats the drinks in the UK and it's infuriating. Every chain coffee just tastes like scorched milk and burnt beans and you can't drink it for 30 mins.
I'm unsure whether, unlike this case, they serve it hot enough that if you spill it, your labia fuses together from the heat of the burns. Horrifying.
Everyone else has finished their drinks half hour ago and I'm still sipping on my black coffee trying not to burn myself...
If only I was vegan too.
It is less negligent to hand boiling water to you over a counter than it is to pass it down to you into a vehicle where you are seatbelted in place.
That was part of the case
I switched to iced coffee years ago for precisely this reason and never looked back. I'd rather have watered down coffee than sit there for half an hour waiting for it to cool. I have an ice tray for big cubes that don't melt as fast, so I freeze coffee in them. That way I don't water down my coffee at home and it's perfect.
Interesting, actually, in Russia I've never had that particular problem.
Maybe there actually is some regulation in place, makes me wonder.
Are they wrong to do this? I believe so, and I can't comment on UK law but US law agrees with me. But can I tell you why they do this? 18 years in foodservice and one of my most common complaints was coffee or tea that isn't hot enough. Sometimes it was that I poured a cup and then had to go do something else before I dropped it off, but a lot of times it was just done brewing and I had walked the pot straight to the table only for someone to send it back and tell me to microwave it until it boiled.
Can someone explain this to Dunkin Donuts and their molten coffee?
Fun fact. The guy who served her the cup of coffee is related to the owner of a Panera franchise that I use to work for. Both him and his brother-in-law (I think that's how they were related) would talk about how that was their claim to fame back when they we're franchising with McDonalds
That must have been not far off boiling!
190 degrees Fahrenheit. They served it that hot to make it less obvious that they (usually) weren't selling fresh coffee.
How much is that in degrees Celsius?
87.8°C
This is 12.3°C below the boiling point.
I always make coffee and tea at 100°C and drink it when it's cooled off.
Only a couple degrees off, yeah. The elderly woman who spilled it ended up getting third degree burns across her entire lower torso and had to have multiple skin grafts done.
During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money.
People aren't understanding the coffee science here. Optimal brew temp is 195-205 degF.
Now it should be regulated that the coffee is required to cool to a certain temperature, probably 160, before they're allowed to serve it. But coffee is supposed to be brewed at a dangerous temperature.
It wasn't fresh coffee though
Yeah, I was confused by this as well. The lady screwed up, coffee is hot by default.
You weren't confused. You're just stupid ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Businesses are not allowed to sell "dangerous by default" products to their customers without a clear warning and sometimes even a signed waiver.
Stuff like "don't put cat in microwave", and similar.
At home my breville delivers espresso’s at 93 degrees C. But it cools quickly in porcelain cups. Did they serve the coffee at boiling temperature?
82-88 *C, according to the Wikipedia page for the Liebeck vs McDonald’s case. McDonalds also serve their hot coffee in paper cups. I’m not a materials expert, but I have to think paper wouldn’t dissipate that heat as quickly as ceramic.
Makes sense in light of their new decision to do away with self serve soda fountains to fight "food theft."
Or they could just charge per cup
My rule of thumb is if it's hot enough to make utensils burn you imagine what that drink is doing to your insides
It still baffles me that Americans drink liters of coffee and even ask for a refill. I drink 200ml and it's enough for the whole day for me.
it's watery weak stuff
In Italy we joke that it's "acqua sporca" or "dirty water".
Brazil has an expression like that too, "chafé".
Café = coffee
Chá = tea
Well we like to enjoy our coffee state-side.
We call it Abwaschwasser, water leftover after doing the dishes.
Classic German one word to describe a sentence /s
Dishwater?
A lot of the world drinks a lot of espresso or at least French press, while most of what we drink in the US is drip coffee which is weaker. And when we do go for espresso drinks, a lot of us tend to favor ones that are fairly diluted (often with sugary flavored syrups and such which it's own kind of American insanity I suppose)
Overall we do drink a lot of coffee, but it's a bit less insane when you account for that.
Personally, and I'm not sure how this stacks up against my countrymen, but I take a 20oz (a bit less than 600ml) thermos of coffee to work with me most days and drink it throughout the morning until lunch time. Caffeine wise, that's maybe a bit more than having 2 double shots of espresso, which doesn't strike me as too insane, though again I'm coming from a very American perspective.
There's actually a lot more caffeine than you probably think, and quite a bit more than two double espressos.
Still, two double espressos is still quite a bit, I think here in Italy the average is around 2 normal espressos in the morning, which would be equal to one double. Four to five espressos in a day is considered the limit to what you should drink, more than that it's a bit much.
Also all the sugar and syrups you pour in can't be healthy.
I mean, in Brazil drip/filter coffee is the most common way of drinking it and still nobody drinks in a day as much as an american drinks in a single serving. The only reasoning I can see is if american coffee is really watery and there's barely any caffeine in there.
I think drip is stronger, per bean if you know what I mean.
Finland is similar to US in that we have high coffee consumption and we like our drip coffee. I usually have two to three mugs (400 – 600 ml) of coffee throughout the day but I would imagine others might drink more than that. I don't need that much in the morning. One time I had so good cortado (not sure if it was single or double shot) at a café that I had to order another one.
Butter dispensers at the cinema to soak their popcorn is my favourite. Like it's fucking tomato sauce on a hotdog or something!
Don't you dare put your 'tomato sauce' on our hot dogs. It's mustard or don't even talk to me
I.. this... what? Butter dispensers? No wonder many of them are morbidly obese
Don't worry, it's not real butter, it's just cheap, coloured trans fats.
That's because US coffee is made like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tiFDTsblltU
Tolerance can vary a lot. I used to be able to do 3 cups a day easy. Then I started taking ADHD medication and the process of finding the right medicine and dosage made me pretty much cut out all caffeine for a while. Now my tolerance is barely 2 cups a day, and if I don't want to be jittery, it's 1 cup of coffee and 1 cup of black tea.
On the flipside, I've known people who drank 8 cups a day.
I'm just confused about these free refills. When did Maccas offer free refills?
It's an USA thing
I still have trouble understanding this. The last time I saw this discussed, someone said they super heated the coffee, but this articke says it was 180-190 °F, which is still quite a ways below what it would be when you make it (92-96 °C = 197-205 °F). Would coffee normally lose a lot of heat when being poured and this was somehow poured differently so that didn't happen? Because when I make coffee and it's near boiling, I pour it and drink it almost immediately.
< deleted. pls find info on fb/yt > ..
Shocker of the century.
I respond by asking them for a cup of ice with it. Asking for ice in it leaves too many of them confused.
This thing has been going around a long time. McDonald's is bad and people will believe anything anyone makes up about the case. People on the internet tend to be contrarian, so they jump on the chance to say "well actually the women that sued McDonald's was in the right, I know this because I'm much smarter than anyone that thinks otherwise!"
The flaw with this meme is making coffee involves boiling water. You can't actually heat water above 100C without it turning to steam. The coffee served to the woman was significantly less than the boiling point of water, because McDonald's isn't able to change physics. The injuries the woman were horrific, but anyone would suffer even worse injuries if the spilled water on themselves while making a pot of Mac & Cheese. Like anything that involves boiling water to make there's an expectation that you need to be careful when handling it.
The reality of the story is the lady that got burned admitted it was her fault. The reason she sued was to pay her medical bills. The real issue is lack of healthcare. Handling boiling water is a common thing, an accident can happen to anyone. Having a system that depends on either having a corporation associated with the accident you can sue or face bankruptcy whenever you have an accident is the real stupidity here.
I mean who would you sue if you tripped while carrying a pot of Mac & Cheese and got burned because of it? The Kraft Corporation maybe? Dumb system that brainwashed people into trying to blame accidents on a nearby corporation instead of fixing the real problem.
The reality of the story is the lady that got burned admitted it was her fault.
The bottom line though is that McDonalds sold/served it at an unsafe temperature (for the type of container it was put in), to make more money, making it an unsafe product to sell, which companies are not allowed to do.
The bottom bottom line is lawyers want to keep up the narrative that it's good and proper to sue over hot coffee. Check the source of the link.
The reality of the story is the lady that got burned admitted it was her fault.
The bottom line though is that McDonalds sold/served it at an unsafe temperature (for the type of container it was put in), to make more money, making it an unsafe product to sell, which companies are not allowed to do.
The bottom bottom line is lawyers want to keep up the narrative that it’s good and proper to sue over hot coffee. Check the source of the link.
You completely ignored my point about safety, you're not being intellectually honest, and arguing for arguing sake.
Dude her labia fused to her leg. I think that coffee might have been just a bit too hot.
Except that coffee doesn't need to be brewed at the literal boiling point of water, so you're wrong there.
Also the lawsuit demonstrated that even 82-88c (as the manual described) was negligently high, and that 60c was plenty hot enough and in fact what most establishments served coffee at
In fact human cells denature at about 60c so any hotter causes damage to your body.
The trial was never anchored around 100c at all
Yeah nobody is disputing the hot water can injure someone. You think I don't understand what boiling water can do to someone? And it doesn't matter if other companies serve cold coffee.
How do you even cook food? You understand the danger and are careful about it. It's commonly understood that coffee is hot and therefore people need to be careful of it. Don't put yourself in a situation where a whole cup could spill all over your groin. I've been boiling water every day at the shockingly high temperature of 100C and somehow I've managed to avoid putting it in my groin area. Crazy, I know!
The link is to a personal injury law firm. How do you think their business would be affected if there was proper health care and accidents don't result in people in a desperate situation where they have to sue someone or go bankrupt? Probably enough of a negative impact that personal injury lawyers are incentivized to promote the idea that McDonald's was evil for serving coffee slightly hotter than other companies. Because they gotta promote the idea that suing someone that gets injured so they can pay their medical bills is a good and correct way of doing things. Which is why this silly meme persists.
Yeah wow a business wants to show competency in their core product, and educate their customers about how to mitigate their costs with their service.
Even without your stupid healthcare system, companies need to be held accountable for negligence. Until we all pull this stick out of our ass and demand governments provide real effective consumer protections, going after the wallet of idiot business is going to be the way.
Wow you must be some kind of cunt scientist, moaning about the fact that the water obviously wasn't boiling because it was liquid. Significantly under 100C, sure.
Water at a temperature as low as 54C "can result in a full-thickness skin burn in 30 seconds" as in, 3rd degree burns.
How fast can a 79 year old strip in a parking lot?
In a kitchen you are an least handling your boiling liquids in rigid containers instead of cardboard. Why would you be walking around with that full hot pot anyway? Did you order your pot of mac and cheese to go?
The stupid thing here is instead of the government enforcing safe products that are fit for purpose, this kind of damage to a person is civil and a tort.
Nice try, McDonald's lawyer.
You want to appeal to shock and emotion because logic isn't on your side.
No, I'm appealing to the reality of the situation because your willful ignorance has no bearing on it.
I think you're ignorant to some facts:
- Boiling water is dangerous.
- Boiling water is something we regularly encounter.
- People understand the need to be careful to avoid horrific injuries.
- Accidents happen.
- Lack of healthcare puts people in a desperate situation where they have to sue someone to pay their medical bills when they have an accident.
- The link above this discussion is to a personal injury law firm which is incentived to promote the idea that suing people to pay medical bills is good and proper. A little sus isn't it?
You're only at the level where you're having an emotional reaction to the horrific nature of the injury due to an accident. You feel like it's heartless to not have sympathy for someone who was injured in such a way.
I'm at the level where I'm sympathetic for people that have similar accidents without a big corporation nearby that they can sue to pay their medical bills. Just google random images of third degree burns (if that's your thing) and understand that unlike the images you linked to, a lot of the people in the other images went bankrupt because of those injuries. So who deserves the most sympathy?
Why are you so heartless that you don't care about people that suffered these injuries and didn't have McDonald's pay their medical bills? Emotion emotion emotion!
Why are you so heartless that you don't care about people that suffered these injuries
If self awareness was a disease you'd be the healthiest person alive.
Just developed the ability to do critical thinking. Many people suffer third degree burns in a variety of accidents. They are horrific. Why should only the people that these injuries in the vicinity of a corporation have their medical bills paid? Because it benefits law firms like the one that wrote the article above?
Consider the source of the information you get on the internet (personal injury law firm). Consider the motives (make suing others over accidents more socially acceptable). Consider the information they're leaving out in constructing a narrative (people commonly handle boiling water and people do suffer from third degree burns because of it). Be wary of emotional appeals (the photos of the injury).
Set aside emotions and think. Where is the real problem? Lack of health care resulting in a society that's overly litigious. Not something you're going to hear from a personal injury law firm so there's no money behind that kind of message is there?
That's a lot of words to miss the point.
People on the internet tend to be contrarian
Proceeds to be the most contrarian person around
I must say, these are the types of replies I'd like to see. It allows me to re-examine everything on the incident from another side and possibly form a better take.
The best take you can arrive at by simply sticking a thermometer into a cup of coffee. I did that this morning... 88C! Then laugh at how ridiculous this meme about McDonald's being evil supervillains for serving coffee at "insane" temperatures of 80C.
The reality is, that's just the temperature of coffee. The lesson here is don't trust what personal injury lawyers say and be careful with coffee... it's hot!
A semi quantitative risk analysis (LOPA) for industrial safety would find this event to be absolutely unacceptable.
So there's the logic you're looking for. Industry safety standards would flag this and demand several additional protections.
Who the fuck drinks mcdonalds coffee??
That’s.. not really the point here…. …?
I don't know from personal experience (not a coffee fan), but my wife tells me it's not bad these days.
It's all burnt dark roast beans. Gotta get the Good Shit™ by grinding your own beans, it's a whole different world
Are you really comparing McDonald's to homemade anything? People don't buy McDonald's because it's better than homemade, they buy McDonald's because it's fast and easier than homemade.
It's barely coffee, it's literally burnt. I'm comparing anything not burnt to anything burnt. It just so happens I used homemade as an alternative.
My home coffee setup is quite frankly obscene and I used to be a snob about it. It took me a while to realize I was just being an asshole and that every cup of coffee doesn't need to be an "experience" or masterpiece.
So to answer your question: people that aren't snobs. It's cheap, convenient, and inoffensive drip coffee -- and sometimes that's all someone wants.
Apparently, people in the US
Yeah,I figured ...
They didn't serve the coffee at that temp to save money, they did it because that was the recommended holding temp for coffee.
After this lawsuit, they didn't lower their coffee temps, they just made better cups and lids, and added more warnings.
Recommended by who, is the thing. The recommended holding temp for coffee is 110°, McDonalds of that era was holding it at 200°, and claiming it was so that when you arrived at your destination with your coffee it would have cooled down to drinking temperature, even though that is not what people use drive throughs for
The recommended drinking temp of coffee is higher than 110F.
Okay so I was going off at home brewing recs for specialty coffee where you usually drink your coffee at 90-100° or lower. The national Batista association recommends 155° as the holding temp so that after 2 minutes its drinkable for the crowd who likes it hot and 4 minutes for the crowd who likes the flavors to develop.
But none of this is the real point.
The real point is that holding coffee at 200° is a dangerous idea that only benefits the corporate entity, McDonalds
I'm having a hard time finding anyone who recommended 90-100F or lower for drinking, even with specialty light roasts. I usually drink my specialty light roast pour overs at 130-135F. I think you might be mixing up brew temps in Celsius for drinking temps in Fahrenheit.
The National Coffee Association says coffee should be served at 180-185F, which seems high. McDonald's was holding their coffee at 180-190F, not 200F, and they still hold their coffee at or near that temp. The only changes from this lawsuit were that they designed better cups and lids, and put more warnings on the coffee.
I'm not arguing that McDonald's should have won the lawsuit, or even that they did nothing wrong, but this common TIL and most of the "facts" in this thread are misleading or just wrong.
I can almost guarantee you nobody is drinking 200° coffee. Hell, not even 160°. Closer to 140° is where it gets bearable without burning your mouth, but that's still pushing it
Did I say people drink their coffee at 200F? I was responding to someone claiming that coffee should be held at 110F, which is fucking crazy.
Drinking temps are usually 125-140F, holding and serving temps should be higher than drinking temps, especially if people might add cream to it.
I drink mine at 168F (measured it this morning). That's after I add a lot of sugar and cream to it. It's 190F before I do that.
It seems a lot of people in this thread don't own a thermometer and won't try dipping it into a cup of coffee to see what temperature it actually is. Just believe whatever the personal injury lawyers say, don't verify it!
Yeah, I know it's pointless to try to educate people, but I can't help myself. I knew the downvotes were coming, but the truth needs to be told.
I got downvotes for saying that 110F was too low for drinking. That's barely over hot tub temps. People are crazy.
Yeah, it's the "I did my own research on the internet" compulsion. Something on the internet lets you in on a little secret and if you buy into it, it makes you smarter than everyone who's not aware of it. Once someone's been convinced that they're special for having some knowledge that most people aren't aware of, it's very hard to convince them that the majority is correct about it, not matter how many facts are presented that contradicts the special knowledge.
It's why flat earthers exist. Of course that's way more extreme (it's almost a lifestyle really) than this thing. But this thing takes a lot less effort to verify scientifically, just stick a thermometer into a cup of coffee. The compulsion is different by degrees, but the psychological cause is similar.