Forums | MacLife

wow, someone is so unable to see things in anything other than black and white that he can't even admit that there are different degrees of heat, that the temperature of an object affects its ability to burn.

wow.

There are different degrees of heat. What I'm saying is that 140 degrees fahrenheit is still hot enough to scald people despite it being the recommended temperature to serve coffee at.

wow, someone is so unable to see things in anything other than black and white that he can't even admit that there are different degrees of heat, that the temperature of an object affects its ability to burn.

wow.

There are different degrees of heat. What I'm saying is that 140 degrees fahrenheit is still hot enough to scald people despite it being the recommended temperature to serve coffee at.

A scalding burn isn't the issue.  A burn deep enough to kill the skin instantly is the issue.  Anything less than that really isn't an issue.

Riiiight...except for coffee there is NO restaurant industry standard, no health department regulation, nothing! Go ahead: use Google to try to find any page which gives any numbers that does not refer back to the Liebeck case. This so-called "standard" apparently all stems from Liebeck's lawyer

A "standard" does not need to be official, nor dictated by law.  It exists as the "standard" way that the majority of the industry handles itself.

Consider the medical field.  There are "national standards" and protocols for certain actions. 

Many "standards" came about by the courts and they exist only at common law.

But you keep on believing whatever the hell you want, friend...the National Association of Coffee knows all!!!!


   

Uhhhh...and this bolded information you posted doesn't tell me anything, other than I'm correct.  What was it intended for?

Bratboy, let me ask you this.

If you acknowledge that in fact there was no standard temperature then how do you base the argument that Mcdonald's is guilty of negligence for exceeding it?
For example, the argument is that the coffee was just too hot, because the user got an injury. However, if the user got a third degree burn from a coffee shop who served coffee at 140-150 degrees instead of 180 then that would still be negligence as an injury resulted.

The "industry norm" cited by the lawyers, seems like a made up guage that was presented by the lawyers as if it actually meant anything. And yet the standard they presented was one that they basically created.

However, as I continue to point out, despite the fact that yes 180 degrees is definitely hotter than 140 degrees, I could also make the argument that 140 degrees is hotter than 100 degrees, and if my client was injured from a product served at 140 degrees then 140 degrees is too hot and therefore there was negligence.

And D'yencourt does actually produce industry standard numbers and the temperature is a lot higher than 140 degrees. Why is the standard set by teh lawyers that heretofore didn't exist for any restaurant more valid than the standard cited by D'yencourt. The only thing proving negligence is that the woman was injured. However, if the woman had been injured and the coffee was servied at 140 degrees, are you suggesting that the lawyer wouldn't argue negligence and that the coffee was too hot or that in that case you would call her case frivolous?

In fact let me ask you straight out. The coffee was 140 - 150 degrees F. She spills it on her lap, She is injured. She sues for damages. Is her case frivolous?

And D'yencourt does actually produce industry standard numbers and the temperature is a lot higher than 140 degrees.

Where?  What are you talking about?  The smurfing coffee institute page?  Did you even visit that page?  It says nothing about COMMERCIAL production and service of coffee.

Why is the standard set by teh lawyers that heretofore didn't exist for any restaurant more valid than the standard cited by D'yencourt. The only thing proving negligence is that the woman was injured. However, if the woman had been injured and the coffee was servied at 140 degrees, are you suggesting that the lawyer wouldn't argue negligence and that the coffee was too hot or that in that case you would call her case frivolous?

I don't know what they would argue. 

In fact let me ask you straight out. The coffee was 140 - 150 degrees F. She spills it on her lap, She is injured. She sues for damages. Is her case frivolous?

Being as though I've already stated that I believe McDonald's was negligent because of their OWN admissions, and because their temperatures exceeded those used regularly within the industry...what do you think my answer would be?

To be honest, while I do think the case was frivolous, and particularly the verdict, considering the injuries I would hope that McD's at least paid the medical bills and gave her a lifetime supply of happy meals for example as a goodwill gesture.

The problem being, that coffee is an inherently dangerous product especially when you take it out in your car and drive with it. (Not that she was driving, but still). Due to demand, people are essentially putting a dangerous product into their car which is cramped and in her case didn't have a beverage holder. People have to assume a little responsibility.

Also, it wasn't merely the heat of the coffee, but that it spilled in her lap and she had exposure for a long time, due to the way the coffee fell into her lap, the amount of coffee in her lap, what she was wearing, the fact that she was in a car and had limited mobility. All these things exacerbated the injury. If a cup of coffee 20 degrees colder fell into her lap the way it did she would still have been injured. Perhaps not to the degree that she was, but injured none the less.

...and guys, do you really believe that her lawyer presented bullsmurf numbers that he just made up and that McDonald's countered with NOTHING?

C'mon!  Their resources by FAR exceeded that of the plaintiff.  Being as though they admitted that they KNEW it was hotter than normally served and that they KNEW customers had badly burned themselves previously and that they had consistently PAID for those injuries...wouldn't that look rather bad to you if you were sitting on a jury?

They're serving hot beverages because people want them to be hot. People arent going to drink lukewarm coffee. Now of those injuries how many of them were 3rd degree burns versus 2nd degree burns versus 1st degree burns? Were they all as badly injured as she? Becuase I would imagine that statistically if a million people drink coffee that is by its very nature very hot and spill it on themselves that  a percentage of them will suffer injury of varying degrees. It doesn't necessarily point to negligence unless you want to argue that coffee shouldn't be sold in restaurants as its a dangerous product.

It is a dangeroush product - if it spills in your lap. But most people assume the risk. I've burned my arm on my iron and got a bad burn. I didn't sue the iron manufacturer because their iron is too hot. In most cases I can iron a shirt without injury. but statistically, due to the fact that irons are in fact hot I might injure myself. If I'm using a knife and accidentally cut myself, is it the knife manufacturers fault that they make their knives too sharp? Knives are supposed to be sharp, that's part of their utility. If they were dull I would try finding a sharper knife. However, sharp knives cut skin. The fact that I drop a sharp knife on my hand and it cuts my hand and causes me to get a severe gash doesn't mean that the manufacturer is responsible for making the knife too sharp.

They're serving hot beverages because people want them to be hot.

Obviously.  I'll ask you yet again...would there be ANY temperature at which you believe a beverage could be served TOO hot?

In any event, this argument makes no sense because the consumer was not wanting coffee served at 180 degrees, the temperature was picked for other economic reasons.  So everdumb insisting that it is what people want is just factually wrong.